Ableton Forum

Tone Deft wrote:

dredd i knight wrote:iq tests dont measure imagination: which is what true genius thrives on.

-1 total hippy dippy bullshit.

you know how many idiots I've heard dream up big ideas for patents and inventions but never actually make anything?

hard work is what genius thrives on.

says the engineer

its both. hard work with out imagination is not genius, imagination without hard work means nothing
most people are either left brained or right brained dominantly, the true geniuses appear to have both sides of the coin

Tone Deft wrote: seriously?? you just never know who you're writing to on this forum.

Ah don't worry it was an easy mistake to make. How does the number 155 grab ye? I can make it happen you know. Just one phonecall....

ikeaboy wrote:

Tone Deft wrote: seriously?? you just never know who you're writing to on this forum.

Ah don't worry it was an easy mistake to make. How does the number 155 grab ye? I can make it happen you know. Just one phonecall....

nah, I'll stick with 15 it's an easier life.

hurlingdervish wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:

dredd i knight wrote:iq tests dont measure imagination: which is what true genius thrives on.

-1 total hippy dippy bullshit.

you know how many idiots I've heard dream up big ideas for patents and inventions but never actually make anything?

hard work is what genius thrives on.

says the engineer

its both. hard work with out imagination is not genius, imagination without hard work means nothing
most people are either left brained or right brained dominantly, the true geniuses appear to have both sides of the coin

I say its moxie, ye ain't got nothing without moxie kids!

Define "really clever" and "really low"

Tone Deft wrote:

dredd i knight wrote:iq tests dont measure imagination: which is what true genius thrives on.

-1 total hippy dippy bullshit.

you know how many idiots I've heard dream up big ideas for patents and inventions but never actually make anything?

hard work is what genius thrives on.

if you're not a genius, no matter how hard you work, you still wont get there.
a genius sees whats already there, and flips it.
ie picasso, coltrane, hawking. hard work plays a part, but is not the whole story.

dredd i knight wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:

dredd i knight wrote:iq tests dont measure imagination: which is what true genius thrives on.

-1 total hippy dippy bullshit.

you know how many idiots I've heard dream up big ideas for patents and inventions but never actually make anything?

hard work is what genius thrives on.

if you're not a genius, no matter how hard you work, you still wont get there.

I disagree with that. I could build you a Star Trek holodeck. it would take me 3,000 years but I could do it. a genius could do it in less time but nothing beats hard work.

you can work smarter rather than harder but it's still work.

I've also heard this described as "luck happens at 4am in the library."

anyway, that's how it goes in my life, maybe not in yours but I don't know you or have a perception if you work or sit on the couch and dream up big things.




edit - yeah, I see your point. maybe there's a Ted.com talk on the topic. I've seen people piss away their smarts, I've seen not so bright people accomplish some cool things.

ikeaboy wrote:Actually although I haven't taken a test myself my day job is to design intelligence tests for Mensa. Been doing it part time since I saw the job on a card in my local job centre when I was 17. Moneys good too!

is 25 out of 30 pretty good for that Mensa workout test?

Tone Deft wrote:
edit - yeah, I see your point. maybe there's a Ted.com talk on the topic. I've seen people piss away their smarts, I've seen not so bright people accomplish some cool things.

the thing is you could build something awesome and be the most successful just from hard work, and have ripped off the idea from someone else
hard work = success not what that success is contained with
like those pointless excursions of "a mona lisa recreated with a million coffee cups!" its technically cool and works, but its not original at all and not really emotionally stimulating

or the guitarist who can play in a cover band and can detail every solo from led zeppelin lick for lick but couldn't write a song for the life of him. His band will be successful and have worked extremely hard, but lacks all originality and artistry.

the genius has the technicality of a scientist and the originality of an artist.

one with out the other is great but its not genius

and a true genius hasn't existed for a long time. I blame poor choices in marriage and having kids at the wrong time.

genius is genius. someone threw in what environment it thrives in, maybe that's where it got off track.

can a clever guy score low on an IQ test (love the misspelling in the thread title)??? of course, answer every question with 'Papa Smurf.'



"the genius has the technicality of a scientist and the originality of an artist."
that's what's known as a Renaissance Man.

hurlingdervish wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:
edit - yeah, I see your point. maybe there's a Ted.com talk on the topic. I've seen people piss away their smarts, I've seen not so bright people accomplish some cool things.

the thing is you could build something awesome and be the most successful just from hard work, and have ripped off the idea from someone else
hard work = success not what that success is contained with
like those pointless excursions of "a mona lisa recreated with a million coffee cups!" its technically cool and works, but its not original at all and not really emotionally stimulating

or the guitarist who can play in a cover band and can detail every solo from led zeppelin lick for lick but couldn't write a song for the life of him. His band will be successful and have worked extremely hard, but lacks all originality and artistry.

the genius has the technicality of a scientist and the originality of an artist.

one with out the other is great but its not genius

and a true genius hasn't existed for a long time. I blame poor choices in marriage and having kids at the wrong time.

Both of the emboldened are really not true. The scientist is just a disciplined observer. Many geniuses exist right now. WTF are you on about?

that's not what he was getting at. he was getting at a duality of the breadth of talent.

really, you should read slower before starting these arguments.

I've taken a few so called intelligence tests and what I can say is that you can certainly better your score a bit by learning how the tests work and you can certainly score really bad if it's you're first time. But I really doubt there'd be a huge discrepancy between your intelligence and your best score if you take a couple of tests.

But are you certain the test you're talking about was an actual intelligence test? I know of several tests that people often refer to as intelligence tests, but they're actually a mix of intelligence tests and skill tests. And some tests you're given when you apply for jobs can be really crap and of very little scientific bearing.

Also, I know of at least one type of test that I know is questioned nowadays - it does measure something, but it seems not to measure what it sets out to... It's supposed to measure your spacial abilities. Now I had a good laugh when I first took one of these - I got the maximum score, but anyone who knows me knows that my spacial ability is so bad, it's almost nil. I've come across similar tests several times later and always scored very good. Then a couple of years back, I read that researchers noticed that you didn't use the part of your brain usually associated with spacial cognition at all during these tests... I could've told'em...

gen?ius
??/?d?iny?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jeen-yuhs] Show IPA
Use genius in a Sentence
–noun, plural gen?ius?es for 2, 3, 8, gen?i?i ?/?d?ini?a?/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jee-nee-ahy] Show IPA for 6, 7, 9.
1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart.

it has to be creative to be considered genius.

technically advancing and improving previous established theories by the extremely intelligent is not enough.

Steven Hawking may be a genius, but is his work genuinely creative or just impressively technical?

hurlingdervish wrote:gen?ius
??/?d?iny?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jeen-yuhs] Show IPA
Use genius in a Sentence
–noun, plural gen?ius?es for 2, 3, 8, gen?i?i ?/?d?ini?a?/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jee-nee-ahy] Show IPA for 6, 7, 9.
1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart.

it has to be creative to be considered genius.

technically advancing and improving previous established theories by the extremely the intelligent is not enough.

Steven Hawking may be a genius, but is his work genuinely creative or just impressively technical?

Now you are talking! Originality and creativity is EVERYTHING when it comes to real genius. Intelligence in and of itself don't mean shit. A person that is a great chess player can be referred to as a genius, doesn't mean he is. The rainman could be a genius in some people's eyes, doesn't mean he was. Genius is about the applied imagination, not the power of one's logic.

Systematics implies efficiency. Efficiency implies a faster more direct route to a known destination. This is not genius, albeit attributed to a gifted intellect.

Genius = The Gift of the Applied Imagination in an original context.