Talk:Genius: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Trimmed See also section: new section |
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
||
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Education|importance=high}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
| Line 9: | Line 12: | ||
|archive = Talk:Genius/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Genius/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }} |
|||
== Please vote here if you knew there'd be a picture of Einstein == |
== Please vote here if you knew there'd be a picture of Einstein == |
||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
<br />Nay: 0 |
<br />Nay: 0 |
||
claims to have invented the Internet |
claims to have invented the Internet |
||
== Genius and emotional intelligence == |
|||
Hello! I know that many geniuses have low emotional intelligence and he leads to mental disorders, but i cannot find reliable sources. You can help me?[[User:Nikolai Kurbatov|Nikolai Kurbatov]] ([[User talk:Nikolai Kurbatov|talk]]) 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:The onus is on you to find sources for the content you wish to add. [[User:AndrewOne|AndrewOne]] ([[User talk:AndrewOne|talk]]) 12:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::It is ok? "Some people have high IQs and low emotional intelligence" https://www.skillsyouneed.com/general/emotional-intelligence.html |
|||
::And this: "Perceived Emotional Intelligence is Impaired and Associated with Poor Community Functioning in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339495/ [[User:Nikolai Kurbatov|Nikolai Kurbatov]] ([[User talk:Nikolai Kurbatov|talk]]) 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think that the first of those two sources is questionable in its reliability. I also explained before why the second source can't be used here. Nothing is said about genius in that summary. [[User:AndrewOne|AndrewOne]] ([[User talk:AndrewOne|talk]]) 13:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hello again! I found this source: "people with low emotional intelligence suffer from mental disorders, lack of empathy, anxiety, anger, weak defense mechanisms, and have problems in administration of their emotions more than others" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905545/ |
|||
::::It is ok? [[User:Nikolai Kurbatov|Nikolai Kurbatov]] ([[User talk:Nikolai Kurbatov|talk]]) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You have not proven the assertions you wanted in the article. That most recent source says that the results of the study "showed a correlation between emotional intelligence and '''mental disorders with internet addiction'''", and I have already told you that the other source is of questionable reliability. [[User:AndrewOne|AndrewOne]] ([[User talk:AndrewOne|talk]]) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Ok! What about this? https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/ppp_lehrstuehle/psychologie_4/pressearchiv/Emotional_Intelligence_as_a_Factor_in_Mental_Health.pdf [[User:Nikolai Kurbatov|Nikolai Kurbatov]] ([[User talk:Nikolai Kurbatov|talk]]) 15:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed merge with [[Geniusology]] == |
|||
Most of the content of Geniusology is primary sources and seems designed to promulgate this theory, without indication of wide acceptance. I was tempted to nominate for AfD but there may be some content to salvage that could be included at the Genius page. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:There are stars, constellations, black wholes -- and there is an article on Astronomy (a separate article). There is thinking, emotions, behavioral problems -- and there is a science called Psychology. Why? Because there is SUBJECT to study and there is science -- with its methodology, theories, hypothesis, etc. There are numerical regularities -- but there is a science of Mathematics. Different things. There is a physical world in movement, but there is a science-- Physics. A science is a study of -- it is a separate subject to study -- not the matter! Actually, I do not care this way or other. But the moment you add something to an established article, there will be FORCES (read AUTHORS) against that. and the discussion will start (ignite) anew. If you are going to deal with this by yourself, go ahead --merge! I did my work describing the science! Oh, I checked the article on Genius once again and I see one more thing. Some of the authors even doubt that the concept of genius should exist...Good luck. [[User:Obrazcity|Obrazcity]] ([[User talk:Obrazcity|talk]]) 07:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{replyto|Obrazcity}} The sources you posted for "Geniusology" for the most part seem to be related to the person who coined the term, and none seem to indicate wide acceptance of the term. This isn't the place to post [[WP:OR|original research]] or theories that are not widely published or discussed in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The wording of the page suggests an attempt to spread word of this term and not an effort to write an encyclopedic article. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::'''Support merge''': It could be argued that this term is simply describing a field of study that already exists. The work of [[Catharine Cox Miles]], for example, might be thought of as proto-geniusology. The lists of [[Tony Buzan]] (partially included on my user page) are another example. Nevertheless, there indeed appears to be no significant acceptance of this particular term in independent sources, and thus the word definitely doesn't merit a stand-alone article at this point. I would gladly support a separate page on this subject once there has been notable coverage. [[User:AndrewOne|AndrewOne]] ([[User talk:AndrewOne|talk]]) 02:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I would recommend an AfD for Geniusology rather than merging any content here. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 04:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{replyto|Power~enwiki}} AfD would only be appropriate if there is nothing of Geniusology to salvage([[WP:ATD]]). If Geniusology duplicates this page, it could simply be turned into a redirect. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*The page has been deleted per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geniusology]]. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 12:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Genius and I.Q. == |
|||
If a Individual is few Dimensional!How does any one of them Qualify to be the most Intelligent Mentally and Spiritually in Existence? Also the Sanctuary of Minds that were and Are can be classified as Just that because of this Evidence what Soul could be Distinguished as Superior without all Being Considered that are and Were Obscure and Unknown? If forever, Intelligence is not and shall ever be Restricted only to Genetics,Back Ground,Profession or Partial Bias and Ignorance! Furthermore has not Genius and I.Q. been Completely About Manifold Brilliance,Creative Uniqueness,Psychological Power and Energy,Progressions,Demonstrations Consistently and Virtually Unlimited Operation as an Individual Mind,Identity and Spiritually!The Obvious Rank,Earnestly Achieved Reign,Clear Radiance, Potential,Capabilities,Various Powers and Remarkable Intelligence that is Staggering to the Imagination! Proof how could such and Individual not be defined as Something that Exceeds Genius and I.Q? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Infinite Plane|Infinite Plane]] ([[User talk:Infinite Plane#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Infinite Plane|contribs]]) 17:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Adding Picture to Genius Page == |
|||
Of course the guy had a 160 IQ and he build an atomic bomb at a young age.He is a genius. |
|||
Hello, |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== Kantian genius: orginality and exemplarity == |
|||
I wish to add Kalidasa's picture to this page. I think it would be good to get representation of more non western figures as well and Kalidasa is one of the greatest Sanskrit poets. Here's the exact picture that would be added: |
|||
[[image:Kalidasa inditing the cloud Messenger, A.D. 375.jpg|thumb|upright| [[Kalidasa]], poet and playwright who is widely considered a [[literature|literary]] genius.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://academic.oup.com/jhs/article/5/2/172/2188635|title=‘Just Like Kālidāsa’: The Śākta Intellectuals of Seventeenth-century South India|quote=...even going so far as to attribute Kālidāsa’s poetic genius to the divine intervention of the Goddess in his life}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author = Dean Keith Simonton|title=Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture|page = Volume 2. 15-48 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444537768000027]|publisher=Elsevier}}</ref>]] |
|||
There are some references (and I could find more) that are a testament to his stature and genius. |
|||
Oxford university Press doesn't seem to be [[WP:NOR]], expecially if it cites a primary source like the ''Critical of Judgement'' 5:308: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{quote|since there can also be original nonsense, its products must at the same time be models, i.e. exemplary, hence, while not themselves the result of imitation [Nachahmung], they must yet serve others in that way, i.e. as a standard or a rule for judging. (KU 5:308)|Cited in [https://philpeople.org/profiles/emine-hande-tuna Emine Thande Khuna], [https://academic.oup.com/jaac/article/76/2/163/5997988?searchresult=1 ''Kant on Informed Pure Judgments of Taste'], OUP, 2p13, at Section III-Products of Genius}} |
|||
: I'd argue that this page already has too many examples; it's devolving into a "list of geniuses." <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 22:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::To be completely honest it seems a bit unfair to flag this addition like this. There was the addition of Confucius earlier this year (for the same reason I gave) and it went by ok (no one reverted it!). There were also additions of "geniuses" from other fields for the same reason with no objection. I don't understand why this case was suddenly reverted. |
|||
Why is it relevant for the WP article? Exemplarity is far different thant the originality required to the artworks of the Kantian genius. According to the current WP article, the Kantian genius has the sole duty to carry an (aesthetical) pleasure to his public. According to Kant, genius is the one who breaks the rules and creates new rules, who is imitated by other artists and whose artrworks become a new standard for the aesthetical judgment of the public. This statement is sourced by an authoritative and academic author, in an authoritative academic press, and directly through the kantian texts. |
|||
::If the number really is the issue then I would suggest that we do more to work within the number to make the page more representative of accomplishment from cultures and civilizations from around the world. In its current state the list is simply not representative enough. [[User:Dude7291|Dude7291]] ([[User talk:Dude7291|talk]]) 23:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291 |
|||
:::{{ping|Kyle1278-2}} Can you provide your own definition of "consensus"? {{U|Dude7291}} has cited scholarly sources above and there is clearly a lack of [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22kalidasa%22+%22genius%22&sxsrf=ALeKk02avelYAxRLHAtYe_HeIv0skokDcw:1599909929719&source=lnms&tbm=bks scarcity of scholarly sources] which describe Kalidasa as genius. The only argument made here against the inclusion is that "this page already has too many examples"; to address this concern I would support removal of images of [[Marie Curie]], [[Aristotle]], since no sources have been provided for them, nor their main article talks about them being "genius". '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 11:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It is a relevant information and improvment for the current WP article. So it can stay in the current oldid shortened to a single row of text: "The artworks of the Kantian genius are also characterized by their exemplarity which is imitated by other artists and serve as a rule for other aesthetical judgements". |
|||
::I too would support the removal of another to make room. I think we should rethink the list altogether starting with this case. [[User:Dude7291|Dude7291]] ([[User talk:Dude7291|talk]]) 15:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291 |
|||
== "Genially" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
::: Does this page really need to be the center of an endless argument of people arguing for the inclusion of their favorite genius? If we are going to cite a few examples, there are a few ways to distribute those examples; area of genius, and geographical/cultural area. At the moment, the distribution is more aligned toward the former, with only one non-Western individual represented. If we're going to include another non-Western figure, I'd argue that [[Srinivasa Ramanujan]] is more frequently cited as a genius than Kalidasa. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 16:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
|||
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Genially]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Genially]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Lithopsian|Lithopsian]] ([[User talk:Lithopsian|talk]]) 14:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|||
::: I am not opposed to adding [[Srinivasa Ramanujan]] instead. I picked [[Kalidasa]] though for precisely that reason. In the popular sense Ramanujan is more well known; whereas Kalidasa is lesser known popularly (at least in the West) but is equal in standing. I do think this is a worthwhile discussion to have though. I take issue with the fact that the distribution varies over area of genius as opposed to the geographic/cultural area and I am sure many people agree. It conveys a poorer perception about certain cultures/geographic location while conveying a more positive perception about others. I think that kind of cultural impact takes precedence over other types of diversity. It would be great to have both but if we must choose one I think we should choose geographic representation. I understand the sentiment that there are too many examples. Adding one more indeed causes an overflow into the references section. I would propose that we remove one (suggestions listed in previous comments) to add [[Srinivasa Ramanujan]]. [[User:Dude7291|Dude7291]] ([[User talk:Dude7291|talk]]) 18:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291 |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|||
::::: I'm OK with replacing Aristotle with either (although I would be opposed to removing [[Marie Curie]], as she's the only woman mentioned. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* [[commons:File:Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 2 (cleaned).jpg|Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 2 (cleaned).jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-10-02T18:38:01.680529 | Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 2 (cleaned).jpg --> |
|||
::::: +1 on replacing Aristotle. I don't see a good reason to replace Marie Curie. [[User:Dude7291|Dude7291]] ([[User talk:Dude7291|talk]]) 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291 |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 2 (cleaned).jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I'd lean a little toward Ramanujan to balance arts/sciences representation (though Da Vinci straddles both, and Fischer/chess is somewhere in between). <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 18:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Sure that works. I can add Ramanujan in and replace Aristotle. Sound good? Is there anything else I should take care of before making this change? By the way, if anyone else has any objections, please add to this discussion. [[User:Dude7291|Dude7291]] ([[User talk:Dude7291|talk]]) 19:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291 |
|||
== ordinary and peerless geniuses... and Wikipedia == |
|||
== Trimmed See also section == |
|||
Look at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsBcdfKfy9o this video]. In it Albert-László Barabási argues for two categories of genius, but more pertinently, he argues that the strongest correlation for "peerless genius" is *drumroll please* the number of Wikipedia languages the bio article has been translated to! (2:33 in the linked video) [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I've removed a significant number of lists of people from the See also section[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genius&diff=981556322&oldid=981554801]. These were simply lists of people of various occupations, not lists of geniuses in carious occupation. Some of them may be geniuses, but most of them were not (and some may have been complete failures at those particular occupations). I don't believe those lists belong in the See also section any more than the many lists of people by occupation that were not included. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 01:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:54, 10 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Please vote here if you knew there'd be a picture of Einstein
[edit]Yea: 15,253,101
Nay: 0
claims to have invented the Internet
Of course the guy had a 160 IQ and he build an atomic bomb at a young age.He is a genius.
Jokerkick (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Kantian genius: orginality and exemplarity
[edit]Oxford university Press doesn't seem to be WP:NOR, expecially if it cites a primary source like the Critical of Judgement 5:308:
since there can also be original nonsense, its products must at the same time be models, i.e. exemplary, hence, while not themselves the result of imitation [Nachahmung], they must yet serve others in that way, i.e. as a standard or a rule for judging. (KU 5:308)
Why is it relevant for the WP article? Exemplarity is far different thant the originality required to the artworks of the Kantian genius. According to the current WP article, the Kantian genius has the sole duty to carry an (aesthetical) pleasure to his public. According to Kant, genius is the one who breaks the rules and creates new rules, who is imitated by other artists and whose artrworks become a new standard for the aesthetical judgment of the public. This statement is sourced by an authoritative and academic author, in an authoritative academic press, and directly through the kantian texts.
It is a relevant information and improvment for the current WP article. So it can stay in the current oldid shortened to a single row of text: "The artworks of the Kantian genius are also characterized by their exemplarity which is imitated by other artists and serve as a rule for other aesthetical judgements".
"Genially" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Genially and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Genially until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
ordinary and peerless geniuses... and Wikipedia
[edit]Look at this video. In it Albert-László Barabási argues for two categories of genius, but more pertinently, he argues that the strongest correlation for "peerless genius" is *drumroll please* the number of Wikipedia languages the bio article has been translated to! (2:33 in the linked video) CapnZapp (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)