In my opinion, doing what Mozart did at the age he did constitutes a sort of genius that is not described in that article. Otherwise he would have been the most hard-working infant the world has ever seen. Any other views?
I believe that Mozart's father pushed him extremely hard, almost from birth--so it was basically the same process, just accelerated. (And not without a downside, of course.)
The "10-year rule" mentioned in the article confirms what I've heard anecdotally that it takes 4,000 - 6,000 hours of work to get to a professional standard on a musical instrument. Double those hours and you're approaching the "genius" level of the greatest performers. The hours as such aren't the whole story - the article points out that you've got to have the right environment and good mentors as well.
Hey, and you have to want it badly enough. "Fire in the belly". Very interesting, old (but definitely not in the way). But I don't agree that that is all you need. There are many people with fire in the belly who do not make it to genius, just as there are many so called natural talents who similarly don't make it. Maybe there are other factors involved, it definitely isn't cut and dried or there would be more geniuses if it was simply a matter of putting in the work - for example, not getting injured in the attempt, keeping sane, finding a balance, luck, being presented with the "right" opportunities, having the right support as lazyhound has said. So much that can go right or wrong, or otherwise we would all be world record breakers.
I think it is a mistake to simplify it like that. That is like saying people are rich because they deserve to be, while others are poor because they didn't work hard enough. Need to be VERY careful with that kind of assumption.
But at what, Chellam? Being yourself? Beautifully imperfect - yes, then I would agree - but not everyone can be a genius in what they want to be genius in, the fire in the belly alone is not enough. Are some people poor because they are stupid, or is it that they lack the opportunity and support from birth to be anything else?
...sorry Clear Drops.
That was just my bone-dry wit coming through once again!
I think many various different factors come into play in the making of a 'genius'. Mickray is correct when he notes the extent to which Mozart's father pushed his musical education, but he clearly possessed a basic ability to excel musically which may have actually been due to his rather tender age more than anything else.
One current train of thought is that all infants possess perfect pitch for example and later lose it if it isn't developed. The Japanese have proven that children can be 'taught' perfect pitch at an early age. Mozart's ear seems to have been his defining musical 'gift' as it were so the father's training the lad from infancy surely gained him much along those lines.
I do think that much more than drive makes a genius. Many stars must line up just right so to speak. Of course, it may also be a fact that a totally 'sane' person cannot become a genius since they all seem to have been a little (or a lot) off, don't you think?
As to 'fire in the belly' , if it happens to me I shall first suspect spontaneous human combustion (there it is again!)
Maybe to be regarded as a genius at something someone 'just' has to be in top one or two in every century or so. If everyone put in the hours and had the mentors etc and many had 'fire in the belly' still only the top few would qualify as genius. And, as with everything else, half of us would be worse than average (OK, median, but lets not get to much into statistics).
But the average would be a lot better.
And we would still debate what was different about those geniuses, how they were different, or maybe whether it was just because the top one or two in every century...etc
RE: Was Mozart a "idiot savant" ?
(I feel halfway qualified to tackle this one)
Mozart, if we acknowledge as a 'genius', would have been the other extreme or complement of an idiot savant since he possessed a 'normal' brain capable of learning or acquiring intelligence.
Idiot savants are incapable of learning because they cannot comprehend abstract ideas. Apparently, even in their field of 'savantism' they cannot incorporate abstract ideas. It is a mystery to science as to where the source of their 'knowledge' in a particular area such as math or music originates. Their brains may be damaged in one area but this seems to somehow overstimulate another area.
Some believe they actually tap into an external intelligence or 'Spirit' of intelligence. This could also perhaps be worded that this external Spirit acts through the savant. This would seem to be more accurately put since the savant has no understanding of the subject matter in which he is exhibiting behaviour of a genius level!
Now, to get back to the topic of the thread "How to be a Genius", I saw a prog the other night on the teev on some people who had suffered brain trauma and as a result had exhibited previously unexpressed genius. The brain is incredible - pure genius! We never get to use it in our lifetimes to its capacity. Backrooms had been opened in these people's brains during rewiring, much less than an external 'spirit' - one could say it was there all the time, just untapped.
Anyhow Chellam, I accept your apology. Enough said ....
... but I realise what you are getting at, genius that I am (NOT), about creative performance flowing through the performer, who feels a mere tool through which an external spirit flows and is expressed ... (I think!!??!!)
Interesting discussion indeed. (I did not know as much about Mozart as I perhaps should.)
genius (plural: genii (classical Roman mythology) or geniuses (colloquial))
1. someone possessing extraordinary intelligence or skill
2. extraordinary mental capacity
3. inspiration, a mental leap, an extraordinary creative process.
4. a work of genius
I wonder, in music at least, how often the term is linked to the third definition, without the requirement of great ability or cultivation in the first and second. And in music, the result of inspiration is an aesthetic, not a hard mathematical conclusion.
So, a composer works on a piece of music, long and hard, dots all their "i"s, crosses all their "t"s, etc. But their work fails to resonate with their listeners. Therefore, not a genius?
I guess I answered my own question -- it seems the mark of genius, arguably, is appreciation by others. Obvious, really (blush).
if you want a more in depth analysis of the nature of genius you could do a lot worse than by reading james gleick's excellent and fascinating biography of richard feynman:
Some interesting stuff, but mostly not news. The article touches on several different qualities - creativity, learning ability, expertise, IQ score, professional achievement, etc.- and it jumbles them together to reach an obvious conclusion - even if you're smart, you still have to work hard to be recognized as a high achiever. And the argument that there's no such thing as inherent creative genius, as usual, just begs the question.
The most interesting part to me is the "ten-year rule" and the evidence suggesting that it applies as well to both physical and intellectual achievement.
RE: "some people who had suffered brain trauma and as a result had exhibited previously unexpressed genius. The brain is incredible - pure genius! We never get to use it in our lifetimes to its capacity. Backrooms had been opened in these people's brains during rewiring, much less than an external 'spirit' - one could say it was there all the time, just untapped."
..this seems to be more or less what has happened to the savant's brain as well! only in the womb before birth. In the tv show, did these people achieve 'genius' through a learning process, however accelerated? Or does the brain acquire genius level knowledge on it's own mysterious path as with the savant?
(note to self - there may be some merit in banging head against brickwall afterall)
Brain damage before or at birth, Chellam. Yes, there was a new obsession and accelerated learning in the two cases I watched, one an abstract artist, the other a sculptor. Definitely not worth banging your head against a wall for though, because they had both lost themselves at the trauma. Looked the same, but weren't. There was some kind of compensation whereby when the wiring was cut to one part of the brain, a hitherto untapped part was activated. A bit scary.
I thought the comment about "chunking" information was interesting--I think that's how experienced ITM players can pick up tunes by ear so fast. After learning several hundred tunes, their brains are rewired to recognize frequently used phrases. It isn't so much that their "ear" (i.e., recognizing pitch changes) is better, or their memory is better--it's their ability to chunk the information and recall it.
lazyhound's comment about the hours of work required was also interesting. A Japanese saying: "1,000 practice sessions to learn a skill--10,000 to polish it." Same ballpark figures, from a completely different culture.
Core, I am so sick of this - keep losing posts, so here I go yet again. I'm going to be genius at posting at this rate. Getting tons of practice. Hope this one isn't lost.
What was that martial arts film again where the trainer says to Grasshopper "Wax on. Wax off."
This sure is interesting stuff, not that I aspire to genius. Happiness will do fer this stupid human, but I just thought you should know that, contrary to Rook's dictionary, my Ozzie dictionary lists 'geniuses' first then 'genii' as the acceptable plurals of 'genius' in Australia.
The Ozzie dictionary also talks about genius as:
6. either of two spirits, one good and the other evil, supposed to attend a person through his/her life;
and:
7. person who strongly influences the life of another.
So the dictionary also recognises some form of outside appreciation. Aren't we doing well!
Anyway, more than the allotted time spent on this. Have four crates of assignment marking to do, and only today to do it in, so must away. May I be attended by some genius fer good while I am marking them. You are all geniuses in my eyes - see I do appreciate you and you are having a strong influence on my life, but is it fer good or fer evil . Just kidding. Cherio.
i guess everyone has a different definition of genius. i take "genius" to denote not merely prodigious virtuosity at a metier, but groundbreaking innovation in that area. smashing the mold and taking the form to another phase or level.
by that gauge, the young mozart may have been a "prodigy," or a "virtuoso," or what dickens comically termed an "infant phenomenon," but not a genius. it was the young-adult mozart who smashed the mold and took his metier to a new form or level. by this meaning of the word, einstein was of course a genius, as, within his metier, was jimi hendrix, who swallowed the blues form in its entirety and then took the electric guitar to then-undreamt-of reaches. and while factors such as parental cultivation, a cultural milieu rife with exposure to many artists expressing the metier at a very high standard, etc, etc, those factors help form a prodigy or a virtuoso, and perhaps contribute to the foundations of genius, in the sense i am using the term to mean revolutionary innovation, but they do not wholly account for it.
I hesitate to drop these into the discussion, because I can't remember them exactly, but maybe somebody can provide the exact quotes.
"A genius is someone who aims at a target that nobody else can see."
"It has to do with the concept of 'taking pains' to do something exactly right. A genius is someone who takes infinite pains."
Whether you're talking about a totally original innovation, or a world-class performance in something already established, I suppose I agree with the article's conclusion: Geniuses are not born, they are made. Support, nurturing, mentoring, fire in the belly, and thousands of hours of hard work are all important. There's another old saying in show biz: "He/she worked for years to become an overnight success."
Why should I bother thinking about this, when I'm certainly not a genius? Because geniuses are people we can learn from. If I can accomplish even a small fraction of what <insert name of genius here> has done, then I'll be a happy guy.
I wish I new. I was looking at a bottle of cleening fluid on top of my toilet cistern just there and it said "concentrate". Do you think it's trying to tell me sumthing?
How to be a Genius
How to be a Genius
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125691.300
I thought this article applies to playing music.
# Posted on May 5th 2007 by old and in the way
Re: How to be a Genius
In my opinion, doing what Mozart did at the age he did constitutes a sort of genius that is not described in that article. Otherwise he would have been the most hard-working infant the world has ever seen. Any other views?
Gabe
# Posted on May 5th 2007 by Munichg
Re: How to be a Genius
I believe that Mozart's father pushed him extremely hard, almost from birth--so it was basically the same process, just accelerated. (And not without a downside, of course.)
# Posted on May 5th 2007 by John Galt
Re: How to be a Genius
The "10-year rule" mentioned in the article confirms what I've heard anecdotally that it takes 4,000 - 6,000 hours of work to get to a professional standard on a musical instrument. Double those hours and you're approaching the "genius" level of the greatest performers. The hours as such aren't the whole story - the article points out that you've got to have the right environment and good mentors as well.
# Posted on May 5th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: How to be a Genius
Hey, and you have to want it badly enough. "Fire in the belly". Very interesting, old (but definitely not in the way). But I don't agree that that is all you need. There are many people with fire in the belly who do not make it to genius, just as there are many so called natural talents who similarly don't make it. Maybe there are other factors involved, it definitely isn't cut and dried or there would be more geniuses if it was simply a matter of putting in the work - for example, not getting injured in the attempt, keeping sane, finding a balance, luck, being presented with the "right" opportunities, having the right support as lazyhound has said. So much that can go right or wrong, or otherwise we would all be world record breakers.
I think it is a mistake to simplify it like that. That is like saying people are rich because they deserve to be, while others are poor because they didn't work hard enough. Need to be VERY careful with that kind of assumption.
# Posted on May 5th 2007 by Clear Drops
Re: How to be a Genius
...EVERYBODY is a genius.
It's just that most people are too stupid to realize it.
# Posted on May 5th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
But at what, Chellam? Being yourself? Beautifully imperfect - yes, then I would agree - but not everyone can be a genius in what they want to be genius in, the fire in the belly alone is not enough. Are some people poor because they are stupid, or is it that they lack the opportunity and support from birth to be anything else?
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Clear Drops
Re: How to be a Genius
...sorry Clear Drops.
That was just my bone-dry wit coming through once again!
I think many various different factors come into play in the making of a 'genius'. Mickray is correct when he notes the extent to which Mozart's father pushed his musical education, but he clearly possessed a basic ability to excel musically which may have actually been due to his rather tender age more than anything else.
One current train of thought is that all infants possess perfect pitch for example and later lose it if it isn't developed. The Japanese have proven that children can be 'taught' perfect pitch at an early age. Mozart's ear seems to have been his defining musical 'gift' as it were so the father's training the lad from infancy surely gained him much along those lines.
I do think that much more than drive makes a genius. Many stars must line up just right so to speak. Of course, it may also be a fact that a totally 'sane' person cannot become a genius since they all seem to have been a little (or a lot) off, don't you think?
As to 'fire in the belly' , if it happens to me I shall first suspect spontaneous human combustion (there it is again!)
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
Was Mozart a "idiot savant" ?
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Justintime
Re: How to be a Genius
Maybe to be regarded as a genius at something someone 'just' has to be in top one or two in every century or so. If everyone put in the hours and had the mentors etc and many had 'fire in the belly' still only the top few would qualify as genius. And, as with everything else, half of us would be worse than average (OK, median, but lets not get to much into statistics).
But the average would be a lot better.
And we would still debate what was different about those geniuses, how they were different, or maybe whether it was just because the top one or two in every century...etc
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by David50
Re: How to be a Genius
RE: Was Mozart a "idiot savant" ?
(I feel halfway qualified to tackle this one)
Mozart, if we acknowledge as a 'genius', would have been the other extreme or complement of an idiot savant since he possessed a 'normal' brain capable of learning or acquiring intelligence.
Idiot savants are incapable of learning because they cannot comprehend abstract ideas. Apparently, even in their field of 'savantism' they cannot incorporate abstract ideas. It is a mystery to science as to where the source of their 'knowledge' in a particular area such as math or music originates. Their brains may be damaged in one area but this seems to somehow overstimulate another area.
Some believe they actually tap into an external intelligence or 'Spirit' of intelligence. This could also perhaps be worded that this external Spirit acts through the savant. This would seem to be more accurately put since the savant has no understanding of the subject matter in which he is exhibiting behaviour of a genius level!
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
Now, to get back to the topic of the thread "How to be a Genius", I saw a prog the other night on the teev on some people who had suffered brain trauma and as a result had exhibited previously unexpressed genius. The brain is incredible - pure genius! We never get to use it in our lifetimes to its capacity. Backrooms had been opened in these people's brains during rewiring, much less than an external 'spirit' - one could say it was there all the time, just untapped.
Anyhow Chellam, I accept your apology. Enough said ....
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Clear Drops
Re: How to be a Genius
... but I realise what you are getting at, genius that I am (NOT), about creative performance flowing through the performer, who feels a mere tool through which an external spirit flows and is expressed ... (I think!!??!!)
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Clear Drops
Re: How to be a Genius
Interesting discussion indeed. (I did not know as much about Mozart as I perhaps should.)
genius (plural: genii (classical Roman mythology) or geniuses (colloquial))
1. someone possessing extraordinary intelligence or skill
2. extraordinary mental capacity
3. inspiration, a mental leap, an extraordinary creative process.
4. a work of genius
I wonder, in music at least, how often the term is linked to the third definition, without the requirement of great ability or cultivation in the first and second. And in music, the result of inspiration is an aesthetic, not a hard mathematical conclusion.
So, a composer works on a piece of music, long and hard, dots all their "i"s, crosses all their "t"s, etc. But their work fails to resonate with their listeners. Therefore, not a genius?
I guess I answered my own question -- it seems the mark of genius, arguably, is appreciation by others. Obvious, really (blush).
Cheers.
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Piece
Re: finetime feynman
if you want a more in depth analysis of the nature of genius you could do a lot worse than by reading james gleick's excellent and fascinating biography of richard feynman:
'genius:the life and science of richard feynman'
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by biggus dave
Re: How to be a Genius
Some interesting stuff, but mostly not news. The article touches on several different qualities - creativity, learning ability, expertise, IQ score, professional achievement, etc.- and it jumbles them together to reach an obvious conclusion - even if you're smart, you still have to work hard to be recognized as a high achiever. And the argument that there's no such thing as inherent creative genius, as usual, just begs the question.
The most interesting part to me is the "ten-year rule" and the evidence suggesting that it applies as well to both physical and intellectual achievement.
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Bob himself
Re: How to be a Genius
RE: "some people who had suffered brain trauma and as a result had exhibited previously unexpressed genius. The brain is incredible - pure genius! We never get to use it in our lifetimes to its capacity. Backrooms had been opened in these people's brains during rewiring, much less than an external 'spirit' - one could say it was there all the time, just untapped."
..this seems to be more or less what has happened to the savant's brain as well! only in the womb before birth. In the tv show, did these people achieve 'genius' through a learning process, however accelerated? Or does the brain acquire genius level knowledge on it's own mysterious path as with the savant?
(note to self - there may be some merit in banging head against brickwall afterall)
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
Brain damage before or at birth, Chellam. Yes, there was a new obsession and accelerated learning in the two cases I watched, one an abstract artist, the other a sculptor. Definitely not worth banging your head against a wall for though, because they had both lost themselves at the trauma. Looked the same, but weren't. There was some kind of compensation whereby when the wiring was cut to one part of the brain, a hitherto untapped part was activated. A bit scary.
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Clear Drops
Re: How to be a Genius
..yep.....if you want to become a genius you just might have to undergo a little brain damage first!
...Otherwise have been fortunate enough to have had good parenting during infancy, like Mozart had, and this article eludes to!
<http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/11433_brain.html>;
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
...hmmmm...try this link and clit on the article noted:
<http://cognews.com/1070523688/index_html>;
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
<http://cognews.com/1070523688/index_html >
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
..Just found an interesting quote on genius:
Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.
Wolfgang A. Mozart
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Chellam
Re: How to be a Genius
I thought the comment about "chunking" information was interesting--I think that's how experienced ITM players can pick up tunes by ear so fast. After learning several hundred tunes, their brains are rewired to recognize frequently used phrases. It isn't so much that their "ear" (i.e., recognizing pitch changes) is better, or their memory is better--it's their ability to chunk the information and recall it.
lazyhound's comment about the hours of work required was also interesting. A Japanese saying: "1,000 practice sessions to learn a skill--10,000 to polish it." Same ballpark figures, from a completely different culture.
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by John Galt
Re: How to be a Genius
Core, I am so sick of this - keep losing posts, so here I go yet again. I'm going to be genius at posting at this rate. Getting tons of practice. Hope this one isn't lost.
or fer evil 
. Just kidding. Cherio.
What was that martial arts film again where the trainer says to Grasshopper "Wax on. Wax off."
This sure is interesting stuff, not that I aspire to genius. Happiness will do fer this stupid human, but I just thought you should know that, contrary to Rook's dictionary, my Ozzie dictionary lists 'geniuses' first then 'genii' as the acceptable plurals of 'genius' in Australia.
The Ozzie dictionary also talks about genius as:
6. either of two spirits, one good and the other evil, supposed to attend a person through his/her life;
and:
7. person who strongly influences the life of another.
So the dictionary also recognises some form of outside appreciation. Aren't we doing well!
Anyway, more than the allotted time spent on this. Have four crates of assignment marking to do, and only today to do it in, so must away. May I be attended by some genius fer good while I am marking them. You are all geniuses in my eyes - see I do appreciate you and you are having a strong influence on my life, but is it fer good
# Posted on May 6th 2007 by Clear Drops
Re: How to be a Genius
i guess everyone has a different definition of genius. i take "genius" to denote not merely prodigious virtuosity at a metier, but groundbreaking innovation in that area. smashing the mold and taking the form to another phase or level.
by that gauge, the young mozart may have been a "prodigy," or a "virtuoso," or what dickens comically termed an "infant phenomenon," but not a genius. it was the young-adult mozart who smashed the mold and took his metier to a new form or level. by this meaning of the word, einstein was of course a genius, as, within his metier, was jimi hendrix, who swallowed the blues form in its entirety and then took the electric guitar to then-undreamt-of reaches. and while factors such as parental cultivation, a cultural milieu rife with exposure to many artists expressing the metier at a very high standard, etc, etc, those factors help form a prodigy or a virtuoso, and perhaps contribute to the foundations of genius, in the sense i am using the term to mean revolutionary innovation, but they do not wholly account for it.
# Posted on May 7th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: How to be a Genius
I hesitate to drop these into the discussion, because I can't remember them exactly, but maybe somebody can provide the exact quotes.
"A genius is someone who aims at a target that nobody else can see."
"It has to do with the concept of 'taking pains' to do something exactly right. A genius is someone who takes infinite pains."
Whether you're talking about a totally original innovation, or a world-class performance in something already established, I suppose I agree with the article's conclusion: Geniuses are not born, they are made. Support, nurturing, mentoring, fire in the belly, and thousands of hours of hard work are all important. There's another old saying in show biz: "He/she worked for years to become an overnight success."
Why should I bother thinking about this, when I'm certainly not a genius? Because geniuses are people we can learn from. If I can accomplish even a small fraction of what <insert name of genius here> has done, then I'll be a happy guy.
# Posted on May 7th 2007 by John Galt
Re: How to be a Genius
Add Michelangelo's words to the mix: "Genius is infinite patience."
# Posted on May 7th 2007 by NEW Pure Drop® Ear Canal Oil
Re: How to be a Genius
How to be a Genius?
I wish I new. I was looking at a bottle of cleening fluid on top of my toilet cistern just there and it said "concentrate". Do you think it's trying to tell me sumthing?
# Posted on May 8th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: How to be a Genius
Dear Key Maniac Lad,
Yer jest pretending aunt u? We no better.
Some other words might be:
observe, ponder, tinker, fiddle, experiment, ponder, dream, create
# Posted on May 8th 2007 by Clear Drops