That's fabulous! No, I'm not writing for the moment. Are you sure you've read everything? There's also "I, the fly" which is a deceptively light read packed with profound sense - for those who get it 😉 amzn.to/3paQsmz
@@Abel.Abelson Oooh I was hoping there was another book under way!! A real bummer... No, I don't want a light read even if there is a big message in it, I want a deep and heavy read like your other two books and Carlos Tinoco's books (on giftedness, I mean). Most things don't go half as deep.
@@Abel.Abelson I really hope so, no in fact you HAVE to write at least another one! I'd be interested in the same kind of raw, unapologetically genuine recounting of your experiences as a gifted person (/surdoué) like you did in the "Setting Free..." book. It's poetic and emotionally intense, and your observations are on point. I really loved it and still am rationing the little I've left to read of it.
Well, yes, I could document the next phase, after everything that happened in the previous book. Thanks for the suggestion and encouragement, I will definitely consider it...
I had the misconception that a genius was perfect in every way. I went into graduate school with a full fellowship, but got caught up into thinking that I was only “smart” if I instantly understood everything in math. Whenever I struggled to understand a proof or concept I started to believe that I was a fraud and didn’t deserve my fellowship. It didn’t help that my advisor portrayed himself as naturally brilliant; I now realize most of what he said was for show; I hate how neurotypicals lie - he fucked up my life just so he could continue to feel good about himself. I had a major depression and quit (and wrote software in industry - which is intellectually satisfying in its own right). Since my diagnosis, I stopped trying to prove my intellect to others. And I’m going to restart my PhD after 13 years. I’m so happy and want to use my gifts to help others.
What i really like about Einstein is this quote "It’s not that I am so smart; it’s just that I stay with the problems longer". Focus on the problem plays much more, and people with moderate IQ actually can do a lot, if they have strong will. Focus is real problem in current times, with so much of distractions. And internet now - one big distraction. I think 'genius' is more like about people who can work in different fields, and achieve there results. Genius brains are capable to learn very fast, anything. But again - if genius wont have motivation, no focus, these brains will be wasted, and results will be same or worse, as from usual person.
If you define genius as a exceptional intellectual ability, (which is the main definition) Einstein was a genius. This is because of his extraordinary speed of thinking.
Newton has the best view on this, he said he stood on the shoulders of science. And just before he died, he said there is an ocean of truth that lay ahead of him.
It's refreshing to hear someone talk about the oversimplification of the concept of a genius and the societal expectations that are imposed upon such people. I find myself interacting with the world with the awareness that everyone's circumstances have been arbitrarily determined by infinite chains of happenings which are all inextricably intertwined, meaning that the significance of being smarter than most people is not indicative of personal merit - just as everyone else's specific attributes are also determined by that same web of infinitely complex and intertwined chains of happenings and cannot be attributed solely to themselves. We all stand on the shoulders of these metaphorical giants you speak of - they take the form of what is commonly referred to as "luck" but what is, in reality, the biggest, and least visible game of causes and effects which is always happening and will always be happening. Paradoxically, my understanding of these concepts inevitably leads me to see myself as holding valuable information that most people do not understand, and therefore as illogically superior to others. Even with understanding that it is not necessarily due to the faults of others that this line of nuanced reasoning is not widely explored, and that lack of exploration serves to render the seemingly "aloof" at a disadvantage in many ways, I still struggle with bitterness towards those who, from my perspective, are not trying hard enough to understand. I appreciate that you take the time to record and publicize your insights on the struggles of those who feel that they are not understood by their peers. This line of reasoning can take everyone to great places, even if it cannot be fully understood by those who are of less exceptional (not necessarily with the common connotation of being positively special) intellect. Another thing that I would like to comment on is the shame that I feel for being intellectually "gifted." I haven't read any of your books (I plan on doing so), so I'm not aware if you've spoken about this before or not. Often times I will feel shame for being able to understand things that most of my peers do not. Since I am, by far, the minority wherever I go, I am oftentimes coerced by the unspoken social language of my peers into acting like I see things from a simpler perspective. This language often takes the form of silence, ostracization, or clearly acting like what I'm saying has been understood on their part. I feel like if I want to talk about things in the ways that I see them, but then I am excluding those that lack the capabilities to "keep up." Acting like I think in ways other than how I naturally think is exhausting and is never a strategy that is 100% reliable. My true intellect inevitably creeps out and I am either put up on a pedestal by most people, which makes me intimidating to them, or I am secretly despised out of jealousy, which also makes people not want to interact with me. This phenomenon makes me feel oppressed - even in friend groups. The hardest part is, as I've mentioned before, knowing that no one is to blame. David Bowie has an amazing song about this feeling - "All the Madmen." What's further is that intelligence is so stigmatized that I cannot share my struggles with anyone else as there is a common misconception that being a "genius" is solely an advantage. It just sounds like I am bragging to most. Of course, the only people that I can share this struggle with is people who are of similar intellect to myself - obviously, these people are incredibly hard to find in real life. It feels somewhat comparable to being a closeted gay person with the struggle to accept oneself and cast aside societal expectations and stigmatizations surrounding who you are "supposed" to be. Of course, I am less likely to be targeted in hate crimes for exposing my intelligence... less likely...
In the public mind the term “ genius “ sums up, for me, the polymath. Genius is rarely polymathic - since The Enlightenment and the empirical method. All you High G guys out there know why so I shan’t explain
People think that being smart always has to be related to math in my country and it's frustrating, I don't consider myself a genius but I do consider myself somewhat smart when it comes to logical thinking and solving problems and I'm extremely attentive but nobody really sees that cuz of my grades in mathematics they think I'm stupid
Yes, terrible. The same goes for people with technical backgrounds, they're so proud of their little bit of knowledge, that doesn't even necessarily consists of understanding, just recipes... Very very frustrating.
There are also so many opportunities where the right sort of person could be given the scaffolding necessary to bring the best out of them. We don't have any concept of how to assemble and arrange people to cooperate in this manner. Related to the problems of giftedness are problems with introversion; there is some good commentary on that, and how extraversion is recognized and promoted easily, and introversion isn't supported in an effective manner. You mention something like this with respect to IQ and how convergent thinking is marked higher on such tests.
This afternoon amazon has informed me that tomorrow I'll receive the two books I commanded, namely I, the Fly, and How to handle neurotypicals, by a guy called Abel Abelson, I guess. I expect to become a human genius reading them. Thank you for your excellent job, Abel.
@@Abel.Abelson Thank you for your great job. Some weeks ago I read your book "Moi, surdoué revolté", which I consider indispensable. This morning I already read "I, the Fly". Fuuuull of meaning, big lesson, and also with funny well-done illustrations. Your books and videos should be read by both neurodivergents and neurotypicals. I appreciate not only your work, but the good soul there is behind. I send you a big hug.
There certainly are geniuses who are well ahead of their time and their peers. Creativity often works best inside a single mind because there a lot of information and variations can be processed much better and on a informal, neurological, unpredictable, intuitive, automatic level; vs in a "team" where innovation is often limited by social convention and processing speed. Of course, the genius needs external input and certain conditions. Still, there goes a lot of effort and thought into true innovations which is simply not put in by others. I believe it would be detrimental to creative minds if all their accomplishments are just dismissed and "teams" are elevated over everything else. It is hard enough already to capitalize on ones creative work. Taking away even the rather idealistic status that comes from being a "genius" makes it worse. Still, I think it is dangerous to believe that only larger-than-life people can accomplish great things, leading to caricatures becoming leaders. Instead, in many dimensions, these people are just people like everybody else but earn the support to gain outstanding support.
Thanks for doing everything that you do with these teachings. Wish I could have found you sooner when I was really struggling with finding out who I am and why I felt so different. Thank you
Genius is a Hollywood concept. It makes for great movies to have a genius doing cool things. It helps to promote college to young people too. They want geniuses to go to college and major in STEM. It's all grift. Also, it works real well for certain groups and narcissistic people to demonize others by calling them 'stupid' or 'genius' as a way to manipulate people's perceptions.
Thank you so much for clarifying this. Setting up impossibly high and false standards can really act as a barrier. I completely agree. I dont think anything is created in isolation, it's all an evolutionary process. I create designs and sometimes I dont even know what I did, the design just somehow evolves. I feel that you just seeing through this false illusion of what a genius is definitely takes a high level of intelligence.
Hi Abel My kid started showing symptoms of giftedness from the age of 3. We gave him Tablet and didn't monitor properly, he was watching tablet 4 to 6 hours, he didn't talk till he was 4. But he started reading English story books in nursery 4 years when other kids are learning alphabets. When he was 3 he was doing zigsaw puzzle of 50 pieces. Now he is 6 he can do 200 pieces puzzle on his own. He understand maths quickly. But socially he is very emotional, like he cry when he see movies or cartoons. Class room is boring for him. He don't focus His teachers in all classes consecutively identified him to be thier best student. His nursery teacher told he is gifted child. I never understood what was it. But I can see the difference when compare with other kids. Thanks for your channel, I started believing that giftedness exist.
But does IQ test actually show the "generilized genius"? Edison was a genius marketer (of course not only marketer but in comparison with Tesla), Tesla was at least same amount of genius but in another field...
Einstein didn't just add to physics quantatively he completely changed our definition of what the essence of physics is fundamentally. Again the chicken comes before the chicken egg in terms of ideas because you need the concept of a chicken before you gets its derivative a chicken egg, Einstein has come up with a new definition of physics such that everything prior becomes a derivative in describing the birth of the definition of current physics. In the ideas realm the threshold for greatness is very low, all you need really is IQ 120 and a willingness for extreme openness and extreme openness is controllable. People don't really understand the difference between how metaphysical realms work and how physical realms work. And to go even deeper there is a metahierachy amongst fields, for example some one may ask why are most geniuses generally touted in physics and not psychology. The answer is simple to our current knowledge physics seems to potentially be able to at its essence explain all of reality undivisibly and simply. This means physics currently seems to maybe one day in the future have a fundamental theory for everything. Psychology in contrast seems to do the opposite thats why most people don't tout the people in there as genius despite them having massive contributions quantitatively and having high IQs 160+. So there is a hierachy of fields predicated on the idea of who is most likely to have a fundamental theory of everything. At the end of the day the best take away is hierachies are valid and hierachies are the only way we can ever reach a state where hierachies are no longer needed paradoxically.
I too am fairly extremely open - especially when it comes to intellect and art. And metaphysical {is it reflection on the physical or an extension of the physical, I wonder? Or have they no connection?
True genius is the ability to critically think. It is uncommon to think of ideas that are outside the established norms. This includes drawing connections between previously thought unrelated entities. Most people of average intelligence struggle to just operate within the standard norms. Genius understands these norms and furthermore draw links between them to expand upon them and define entirely new norms. Critical thought is the absolute marker of intelligence. It takes much critical thought to express new ideas and verify them in reality.
Just as every other human judgement on things and the attachment of framing those good or bad, it limits the possibilities for whatever that object shines its light on
This video is quite genius...It does provoke thoughts and wonder of how many have come before that paved the way, created the path, for this video to be made. This video is a testament to it's own proclamation. 👍🏻 Thanks for another great video 🙂
You undervalue the strenght of real geniuses. They train and study the subject for a whole life. Average people can acidently have a genius idea but true genius can have a constant brilliant ideas in some area. Check how much Mozart put time and training before his first opera was played on a scene. Real geniuses have to push a lot of time and effort into the talent they have before any genius things appear.
He did say that Darwin did a lot of work, he did not say that those people don't put time and effort in their work, i think you didn't get the point of the video.
@@potatomer Right, you should have a talant and than push hard in some direction before you be able to produce anything close to "genius idea". Sometimes genius things appear by acident but this is just exception not the rule. "Real genius" is the one who walk throught the long way. It is a very primitive idea that the worker from the mines may become an expert in math even if force him to work with it for decades.
@@potatomer Mozart can become a miner, but miner can't become a Mozart. There are genetic limits. The developers of vaccine doesn't invented the methods of vaccine creation they using a ready algorithm. They are probably not so smart as the people who invented this algorithms. You can force a monkey to became a Shakespeare but 1000 years will be not enough to get anything relevant. Peoples with small IQ absolutely unavaiable to do certain type of work. So become genius is a thing for a small part of gifted peoples. Average humans can make some brilliant if push them hard/long, but only "real genius" will be able to do the same in a very short amount of time. The brain of geniuses is specially trained to deal with untypical tasks when monkey are only good in repeating things. DO NOT UNDERVALUE THE STRENGTH OF GENIUSES.
@@potatomer You may desagree that IQ affect abilities. But there is a scientific research and people with IQ below 83 can't do any relevant work on this planet. In general to work in some area person have to have at least certain level IQ. I don't ignore the impact of simple peoples but being genius is not like doing monkey work who can be only good in executing limited defined instructions.
@@potatomer If someone act like a monkey, think like a monkey, do a monkey work and even look like a monkey in some aspects. How should I call it? Sheep? Cow? Mo®on? 1diot? ...
I disagree. What you confuse is ideas don't work the same way as physical things. Hierachies predicated on physical things are linear both in progression and in quantiative scope, hierarchies on ideas are non linear both in progression and in quantiative scope. In basketball a guy wins 7 championships and averages 32 point in 1950 where game was less developed, while another player wins 5 championships and averages 27 points in 2000 where the game is near maximally developed. They are on the same level and it is measurable. In the ideas hierachy a guy creates a pencil basic mathematics everything that was required by Einstein to create general relativity, Einstein creates general relativity. So the question is who contributed more well counter intuitively Einstein did because with general relativity has no quantitatively expanded rather just merely qualitatively expanded all of physics. Your referencing the chicken and the egg problem which comes first, this problem is simply solved in physical space they are equal but in the realm of ideas the chicken precedes the chicken egg the chicken egg is a derivation of the idea of a chicken to begin with. Einstein general realivity to our current knowledge is closer to the essence of physics than anything created before therefore the person responsible is higher level despite the pure quantiative contributions. Now I do agree with you people need to understand that alot of genius is within collective processes and that alot of these geniuses are not geniuses because of any major physical abilities. For example Einstein IQ was 140 to 160 range that is above average but it isn't out of the ordinary with many people who occupy the space of physics and science has even shown to make a major contribution on the level of Einstein all you need is a 120 IQ. So Einstein didn't come up with what he did because his brain was so different and he had such physical prowess it was because he worked hard was highly open highly critical and willing to explore even to the extent of mysticism to get to the ideas. I believe when information processing becomes distributed people will intuitively arrive to the conclusion that I have resolved. Also this calculus also explains why CEOs and company leaders get all the money and are attributed with making the mass contribution. People have a hard time understanding the physical is not fundsmental and that the mental operates differently from the physical.
I very much agree with the points you've made in this video. The reality of things is that the margins between intelligent people are very small and are only made significant when you pursue one thing to the point where you slightly improve on the pre existing ideas and knowledge. Its an ongoing pursuit rather than ephiphanies out of the blue like its often shown and very often invention is a winner takes it all race, the ones who get there first get all the acclaim. The real difference makers are the environment, opportunities, where you choose to direct your attention and what drives you rather than the hardware of the brain itself, so to speak. The cluprit of why this is being portrayed differently in the media is the pop culture I'd say, people are turned into almost perfect characters, like a deity of sorts in order to draw attention and draw in the audience, but also if we are talking about articles and especially biopic movies, it can be a question of format as well, how can you condense this person into a narrative that you want to present about them, within 90 minutes in a subjective art form. It certainly sells the tickets, but as you suggested yourself, that kind of image is not a good foundation to build your self confidence on.
I have a question did the industrial Revolution and Fredrik of Prussia Educational reforms has put true geniuses to pits of hell? Also I am seeing that universal geniuses are a thing of a past and specialists are being called genius.
I defiantly think the specialists being called geniuses is a reflection of the modern phd system. Basically anyone can get a phd in anything and be considered an "expert" in their field by the academic establishment (at least in America). The problem is I can get a PHD conducting studies on the most trivial topics with my field. If I want a PHD in Literature I could study 50 shades of grey if I wanted to, so the PHD has kind of turned into a meaningless title, but the academic establishment still views it as a holy crown. Another part of the problem of universal genius is that topics, especially in the field of science, have become so vast with so many questions it's almost impossible to be a universal genius and simultaneously understand a topic well enough to start doing groundbreaking research. This is especially true in something like physics, where there are so many different fields (astrophysics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, computational physics, theoretical physics, etc.) it's impossible to be an expert in one field without sacrificing knowledge in another. So I think part of the death of the universal genius is that humans have acquired so much knowledge in the past 100 years (and with that knowledge, endless questions that need to be answered) it would be physically impossible for someone to be a universal genius. They would just be a jack of all traits, master of none; having a surface level understanding of most things. As for education reform, I'm an American and our public schools are a joke. There have been so many changes to the system that are based on working for a capitalism system rather than focusing on brain development and fostering the intellect. My personal opinion on any form of education is that it is at it's best when a gifted student has a good personal mentor. Many of the great universal geniuses of the past (like da vinci) had more of a mentorship than an formal education by todays standards that proved very beneficial, especially when the student is eager to learn.
@@letBIGGIErest Thanks for your reply I agree mostly on your topics but I beg to differ that true geniuses are not allowed to mature who show multiple intelligences interests in multiple fields yet they are tortured by their parents, academia and peers which results in them development issues including depression , anxiety,mental issues.Who knows how many geniuses have been lost to this system.I consider Nikola Tesla to be true genius of the 21st century.
Edison didn't invent the lightbulb and the key part to commercializing it.. the carbon filament..was invented by Lewis Latimer.....but that's a conversation for another day Good stuff in this video.. There's some stuff I've read about how the word "genius" used to be understood in a way that didn't deify the person so much
I think individual geniuses exist in the sense of superior cognitive ability, but I see what you're saying about genius in the sense of works of genius.
I'm not a big fan, but that's personal preference. Science says we're not going to be able to really colonize Mars for centuries to come, so he's burning a lot of kerosene for a project that's only benefiting himself in the end.
@@Abel.Abelson thank you for your reply. I like your content and I think may be I am gifted. I have passed mensa pretest I have got 126 as Iq score. In fact, I am sort of an atypical person: I felt some mismatch regarding my social interaction with people, and I am always driven to learn more and discover how things work.
The most important thing is to know, and realize, and accept, your differences, which may be profound or less profound, but they're there, and go from there. Specifically "gifted" or not is not really the question.
i have different definition from yours. it is that they have a near if not one of a kind understanding of something. like Albert Einstein and his view of reality.
Hi, sorry for not answering before :) I did Myer-Briggs a long time ago, definutely turned out IN something but don't remember the rest. I'm not all that into Myer-Briggs actually, it also seems that Big Five is actually the only model that's academically accepted these days. You can do Big Five tests for free on the internet, they're interesting - as far as these tests go...
@@Abel.Abelson Big Five is as scientifically unreliable as MBTI lol It's just less hated by psychology bigshots! Carl Jung's discovery of the 8 cognitive functions and psychological types comprised therewith is based on real life, it's not a just a theory. You are missing out on a huge chunk of extremely pertinent (sometimes crucial) info if you dismiss the existence of CFs and types, I could never do that as a fellow gifted. PS: the two theories are describing different things, except the intro/extraversion scale. Knowing what cognitive functions you and other humans use is just a big set of keys that opens many doors that you didn't have access to before.
@@Abel.Abelson Carlos Tinoco has two great books on giftedness that go unconventional ways! Really cool stuff. His (now somewhat deserted) channel has quite a few videos someone has subbed in English, I highly recommend his content: _demonstrer_ ua-cam.com/channels/TFSbMzp7yjguxH3eZU77CQ.html
@@Abel.Abelson it's ok to be yourself. Do not think about people like Einstein, they were different. Different life, dfferent destiny. You have nothing to prove to yourself
I'm trying not to finish your 2nd book ("Setting Free...") I like it so much, and I need more!! Do you have more in production????
That's fabulous! No, I'm not writing for the moment. Are you sure you've read everything? There's also "I, the fly" which is a deceptively light read packed with profound sense - for those who get it 😉 amzn.to/3paQsmz
@@Abel.Abelson Oooh I was hoping there was another book under way!! A real bummer... No, I don't want a light read even if there is a big message in it, I want a deep and heavy read like your other two books and Carlos Tinoco's books (on giftedness, I mean). Most things don't go half as deep.
There might be something in the future if course 😉. Just out of curiosity, what kind of book would interest you personally most?
@@Abel.Abelson I really hope so, no in fact you HAVE to write at least another one!
I'd be interested in the same kind of raw, unapologetically genuine recounting of your experiences as a gifted person (/surdoué) like you did in the "Setting Free..." book. It's poetic and emotionally intense, and your observations are on point. I really loved it and still am rationing the little I've left to read of it.
Well, yes, I could document the next phase, after everything that happened in the previous book. Thanks for the suggestion and encouragement, I will definitely consider it...
I had the misconception that a genius was perfect in every way. I went into graduate school with a full fellowship, but got caught up into thinking that I was only “smart” if I instantly understood everything in math. Whenever I struggled to understand a proof or concept I started to believe that I was a fraud and didn’t deserve my fellowship. It didn’t help that my advisor portrayed himself as naturally brilliant; I now realize most of what he said was for show; I hate how neurotypicals lie - he fucked up my life just so he could continue to feel good about himself. I had a major depression and quit (and wrote software in industry - which is intellectually satisfying in its own right). Since my diagnosis, I stopped trying to prove my intellect to others. And I’m going to restart my PhD after 13 years. I’m so happy and want to use my gifts to help others.
What i really like about Einstein is this quote "It’s not that I am so smart; it’s just that I stay with the problems longer". Focus on the problem plays much more, and people with moderate IQ actually can do a lot, if they have strong will. Focus is real problem in current times, with so much of distractions. And internet now - one big distraction.
I think 'genius' is more like about people who can work in different fields, and achieve there results. Genius brains are capable to learn very fast, anything. But again - if genius wont have motivation, no focus, these brains will be wasted, and results will be same or worse, as from usual person.
Michelangelo had a similar quote: "If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all."
If you define genius as a exceptional intellectual ability, (which is the main definition) Einstein was a genius. This is because of his extraordinary speed of thinking.
Newton has the best view on this, he said he stood on the shoulders of science. And just before he died, he said there is an ocean of truth that lay ahead of him.
It's refreshing to hear someone talk about the oversimplification of the concept of a genius and the societal expectations that are imposed upon such people. I find myself interacting with the world with the awareness that everyone's circumstances have been arbitrarily determined by infinite chains of happenings which are all inextricably intertwined, meaning that the significance of being smarter than most people is not indicative of personal merit - just as everyone else's specific attributes are also determined by that same web of infinitely complex and intertwined chains of happenings and cannot be attributed solely to themselves. We all stand on the shoulders of these metaphorical giants you speak of - they take the form of what is commonly referred to as "luck" but what is, in reality, the biggest, and least visible game of causes and effects which is always happening and will always be happening.
Paradoxically, my understanding of these concepts inevitably leads me to see myself as holding valuable information that most people do not understand, and therefore as illogically superior to others. Even with understanding that it is not necessarily due to the faults of others that this line of nuanced reasoning is not widely explored, and that lack of exploration serves to render the seemingly "aloof" at a disadvantage in many ways, I still struggle with bitterness towards those who, from my perspective, are not trying hard enough to understand.
I appreciate that you take the time to record and publicize your insights on the struggles of those who feel that they are not understood by their peers. This line of reasoning can take everyone to great places, even if it cannot be fully understood by those who are of less exceptional (not necessarily with the common connotation of being positively special) intellect.
Another thing that I would like to comment on is the shame that I feel for being intellectually "gifted." I haven't read any of your books (I plan on doing so), so I'm not aware if you've spoken about this before or not. Often times I will feel shame for being able to understand things that most of my peers do not. Since I am, by far, the minority wherever I go, I am oftentimes coerced by the unspoken social language of my peers into acting like I see things from a simpler perspective. This language often takes the form of silence, ostracization, or clearly acting like what I'm saying has been understood on their part. I feel like if I want to talk about things in the ways that I see them, but then I am excluding those that lack the capabilities to "keep up." Acting like I think in ways other than how I naturally think is exhausting and is never a strategy that is 100% reliable. My true intellect inevitably creeps out and I am either put up on a pedestal by most people, which makes me intimidating to them, or I am secretly despised out of jealousy, which also makes people not want to interact with me. This phenomenon makes me feel oppressed - even in friend groups. The hardest part is, as I've mentioned before, knowing that no one is to blame. David Bowie has an amazing song about this feeling - "All the Madmen."
What's further is that intelligence is so stigmatized that I cannot share my struggles with anyone else as there is a common misconception that being a "genius" is solely an advantage. It just sounds like I am bragging to most. Of course, the only people that I can share this struggle with is people who are of similar intellect to myself - obviously, these people are incredibly hard to find in real life. It feels somewhat comparable to being a closeted gay person with the struggle to accept oneself and cast aside societal expectations and stigmatizations surrounding who you are "supposed" to be. Of course, I am less likely to be targeted in hate crimes for exposing my intelligence... less likely...
In the public mind the term “ genius “ sums up, for me, the polymath. Genius is rarely polymathic - since The Enlightenment and the empirical method. All you High G guys out there know why so I shan’t explain
People think that being smart always has to be related to math in my country and it's frustrating, I don't consider myself a genius but I do consider myself somewhat smart when it comes to logical thinking and solving problems and I'm extremely attentive but nobody really sees that cuz of my grades in mathematics they think I'm stupid
Yes, terrible. The same goes for people with technical backgrounds, they're so proud of their little bit of knowledge, that doesn't even necessarily consists of understanding, just recipes... Very very frustrating.
There are also so many opportunities where the right sort of person could be given the scaffolding necessary to bring the best out of them. We don't have any concept of how to assemble and arrange people to cooperate in this manner.
Related to the problems of giftedness are problems with introversion; there is some good commentary on that, and how extraversion is recognized and promoted easily, and introversion isn't supported in an effective manner.
You mention something like this with respect to IQ and how convergent thinking is marked higher on such tests.
This afternoon amazon has informed me that tomorrow I'll receive the two books I commanded, namely I, the Fly, and How to handle neurotypicals, by a guy called Abel Abelson, I guess. I expect to become a human genius reading them. Thank you for your excellent job, Abel.
I'm sure you'll find a lot of meaning in them! Don't forget to leave reviews if you like them!! Thanks!
@@Abel.Abelson Thank you for your great job. Some weeks ago I read your book "Moi, surdoué revolté", which I consider indispensable. This morning I already read "I, the Fly". Fuuuull of meaning, big lesson, and also with funny well-done illustrations. Your books and videos should be read by both neurodivergents and neurotypicals. I appreciate not only your work, but the good soul there is behind. I send you a big hug.
There certainly are geniuses who are well ahead of their time and their peers. Creativity often works best inside a single mind because there a lot of information and variations can be processed much better and on a informal, neurological, unpredictable, intuitive, automatic level; vs in a "team" where innovation is often limited by social convention and processing speed. Of course, the genius needs external input and certain conditions. Still, there goes a lot of effort and thought into true innovations which is simply not put in by others. I believe it would be detrimental to creative minds if all their accomplishments are just dismissed and "teams" are elevated over everything else. It is hard enough already to capitalize on ones creative work. Taking away even the rather idealistic status that comes from being a "genius" makes it worse.
Still, I think it is dangerous to believe that only larger-than-life people can accomplish great things, leading to caricatures becoming leaders. Instead, in many dimensions, these people are just people like everybody else but earn the support to gain outstanding support.
Hunger is the handmaid of genius ~ Mark Twain.
Really appreciated the point about genius being more approachable and more human and more of a group thing.
Thanks for doing everything that you do with these teachings. Wish I could have found you sooner when I was really struggling with finding out who I am and why I felt so different. Thank you
You're very welcome, glad I can be of help and bring some meaning 😊
Genius is a Hollywood concept. It makes for great movies to have a genius doing cool things. It helps to promote college to young people too. They want geniuses to go to college and major in STEM. It's all grift. Also, it works real well for certain groups and narcissistic people to demonize others by calling them 'stupid' or 'genius' as a way to manipulate people's perceptions.
So these are some ways the genius concept can be used.
Thankyou I was struggling big time with this
You're very welcome! If you're struggling with stuff, check out my books too, they could be of help to you as they've been to others: amzn.to/3paQsmz
@@Abel.Abelson I already did :) waiting for them to be delivered
The ego's out there... They poison the spirit of science. Unfortunately.
Thank you so much for clarifying this. Setting up impossibly high and false standards can really act as a barrier. I completely agree. I dont think anything is created in isolation, it's all an evolutionary process. I create designs and sometimes I dont even know what I did, the design just somehow evolves. I feel that you just seeing through this false illusion of what a genius is definitely takes a high level of intelligence.
Yes, exactly, it's all processes, also continuing into the future... Thanks for commenting 🙂!
Thank you for making another video! I like them very much.
You're welcome! Thank you!
This is reassuring. Thank you.
Nice video, man!
Thanks!
Hi Abel
My kid started showing symptoms of giftedness from the age of 3. We gave him Tablet and didn't monitor properly, he was watching tablet 4 to 6 hours, he didn't talk till he was 4. But he started reading English story books in nursery 4 years when other kids are learning alphabets. When he was 3 he was doing zigsaw puzzle of 50 pieces. Now he is 6 he can do 200 pieces puzzle on his own. He understand maths quickly.
But socially he is very emotional, like he cry when he see movies or cartoons.
Class room is boring for him. He don't focus
His teachers in all classes consecutively identified him to be thier best student.
His nursery teacher told he is gifted child. I never understood what was it. But I can see the difference when compare with other kids.
Thanks for your channel, I started believing that giftedness exist.
You're welcome! Might be interesting to check his 2D:4D ratio! ua-cam.com/video/OmbEaBfzKFk/v-deo.html
Well said! Thank you for your contributions to giftedness.
You're welcome! Thank you :)
But does IQ test actually show the "generilized genius"?
Edison was a genius marketer (of course not only marketer but in comparison with Tesla), Tesla was at least same amount of genius but in another field...
are you active on any platform online?
I like this video, thanks. Why did you stop making videos?
Hmmm who knows how many true geniuses were lost by the burning of library of Alexandria and library of Bhagdad.
So true about standing on the shoulders of giants - and EVERYBODY.
Einstein didn't just add to physics quantatively he completely changed our definition of what the essence of physics is fundamentally. Again the chicken comes before the chicken egg in terms of ideas because you need the concept of a chicken before you gets its derivative a chicken egg, Einstein has come up with a new definition of physics such that everything prior becomes a derivative in describing the birth of the definition of current physics. In the ideas realm the threshold for greatness is very low, all you need really is IQ 120 and a willingness for extreme openness and extreme openness is controllable. People don't really understand the difference between how metaphysical realms work and how physical realms work. And to go even deeper there is a metahierachy amongst fields, for example some one may ask why are most geniuses generally touted in physics and not psychology. The answer is simple to our current knowledge physics seems to potentially be able to at its essence explain all of reality undivisibly and simply. This means physics currently seems to maybe one day in the future have a fundamental theory for everything. Psychology in contrast seems to do the opposite thats why most people don't tout the people in there as genius despite them having massive contributions quantitatively and having high IQs 160+. So there is a hierachy of fields predicated on the idea of who is most likely to have a fundamental theory of everything. At the end of the day the best take away is hierachies are valid and hierachies are the only way we can ever reach a state where hierachies are no longer needed paradoxically.
I too am fairly extremely open - especially when it comes to intellect and art.
And metaphysical {is it reflection on the physical or an extension of the physical, I wonder? Or have they no connection?
True genius is the ability to critically think.
It is uncommon to think of ideas that are outside the established norms.
This includes drawing connections between previously thought unrelated entities.
Most people of average intelligence struggle to just operate within the standard norms.
Genius understands these norms and furthermore draw links between them to expand upon them and define entirely new norms.
Critical thought is the absolute marker of intelligence.
It takes much critical thought to express new ideas and verify them in reality.
Just as every other human judgement on things and the attachment of framing those good or bad, it limits the possibilities for whatever that object shines its light on
That's fabulously stated.
This video is quite genius...It does provoke thoughts and wonder of how many have come before that paved the way, created the path, for this video to be made. This video is a testament to it's own proclamation. 👍🏻 Thanks for another great video 🙂
You're welcome! Thanks!
You undervalue the strenght of real geniuses. They train and study the subject for a whole life. Average people can acidently have a genius idea but true genius can have a constant brilliant ideas in some area. Check how much Mozart put time and training before his first opera was played on a scene.
Real geniuses have to push a lot of time and effort into the talent they have before any genius things appear.
He did say that Darwin did a lot of work, he did not say that those people don't put time and effort in their work, i think you didn't get the point of the video.
@@potatomer Right, you should have a talant and than push hard in some direction before you be able to produce anything close to "genius idea".
Sometimes genius things appear by acident but this is just exception not the rule.
"Real genius" is the one who walk throught the long way. It is a very primitive idea that the worker from the mines may become an expert in math even if force him to work with it for decades.
@@potatomer Mozart can become a miner, but miner can't become a Mozart. There are genetic limits.
The developers of vaccine doesn't invented the methods of vaccine creation they using a ready algorithm. They are probably not so smart as the people who invented this algorithms.
You can force a monkey to became a Shakespeare but 1000 years will be not enough to get anything relevant. Peoples with small IQ absolutely unavaiable to do certain type of work. So become genius is a thing for a small part of gifted peoples.
Average humans can make some brilliant if push them hard/long, but only "real genius" will be able to do the same in a very short amount of time. The brain of geniuses is specially trained to deal with untypical tasks when monkey are only good in repeating things.
DO NOT UNDERVALUE THE STRENGTH OF GENIUSES.
@@potatomer You may desagree that IQ affect abilities. But there is a scientific research and people with IQ below 83 can't do any relevant work on this planet. In general to work in some area person have to have at least certain level IQ.
I don't ignore the impact of simple peoples but being genius is not like doing monkey work who can be only good in executing limited defined instructions.
@@potatomer If someone act like a monkey, think like a monkey, do a monkey work and even look like a monkey in some aspects. How should I call it?
Sheep?
Cow?
Mo®on?
1diot?
...
Very good video. Greetings from Finland.
Greetings! Thanks! :)
I disagree. What you confuse is ideas don't work the same way as physical things. Hierachies predicated on physical things are linear both in progression and in quantiative scope, hierarchies on ideas are non linear both in progression and in quantiative scope. In basketball a guy wins 7 championships and averages 32 point in 1950 where game was less developed, while another player wins 5 championships and averages 27 points in 2000 where the game is near maximally developed. They are on the same level and it is measurable. In the ideas hierachy a guy creates a pencil basic mathematics everything that was required by Einstein to create general relativity, Einstein creates general relativity. So the question is who contributed more well counter intuitively Einstein did because with general relativity has no quantitatively expanded rather just merely qualitatively expanded all of physics. Your referencing the chicken and the egg problem which comes first, this problem is simply solved in physical space they are equal but in the realm of ideas the chicken precedes the chicken egg the chicken egg is a derivation of the idea of a chicken to begin with. Einstein general realivity to our current knowledge is closer to the essence of physics than anything created before therefore the person responsible is higher level despite the pure quantiative contributions. Now I do agree with you people need to understand that alot of genius is within collective processes and that alot of these geniuses are not geniuses because of any major physical abilities. For example Einstein IQ was 140 to 160 range that is above average but it isn't out of the ordinary with many people who occupy the space of physics and science has even shown to make a major contribution on the level of Einstein all you need is a 120 IQ. So Einstein didn't come up with what he did because his brain was so different and he had such physical prowess it was because he worked hard was highly open highly critical and willing to explore even to the extent of mysticism to get to the ideas. I believe when information processing becomes distributed people will intuitively arrive to the conclusion that I have resolved. Also this calculus also explains why CEOs and company leaders get all the money and are attributed with making the mass contribution. People have a hard time understanding the physical is not fundsmental and that the mental operates differently from the physical.
I very much agree with the points you've made in this video. The reality of things is that the margins between intelligent people are very small and are only made significant when you pursue one thing to the point where you slightly improve on the pre existing ideas and knowledge. Its an ongoing pursuit rather than ephiphanies out of the blue like its often shown and very often invention is a winner takes it all race, the ones who get there first get all the acclaim. The real difference makers are the environment, opportunities, where you choose to direct your attention and what drives you rather than the hardware of the brain itself, so to speak. The cluprit of why this is being portrayed differently in the media is the pop culture I'd say, people are turned into almost perfect characters, like a deity of sorts in order to draw attention and draw in the audience, but also if we are talking about articles and especially biopic movies, it can be a question of format as well, how can you condense this person into a narrative that you want to present about them, within 90 minutes in a subjective art form. It certainly sells the tickets, but as you suggested yourself, that kind of image is not a good foundation to build your self confidence on.
I have a question did the industrial Revolution and Fredrik of Prussia Educational reforms has put true geniuses to pits of hell? Also I am seeing that universal geniuses are a thing of a past and specialists are being called genius.
@@justinrodriguez5156 I did not understand your question.
@@justinrodriguez5156 the hell you talking about man? How did you even manage to connect nofap and the question of the OP?
@@starscream007 It’s truly impressive
I defiantly think the specialists being called geniuses is a reflection of the modern phd system. Basically anyone can get a phd in anything and be considered an "expert" in their field by the academic establishment (at least in America). The problem is I can get a PHD conducting studies on the most trivial topics with my field. If I want a PHD in Literature I could study 50 shades of grey if I wanted to, so the PHD has kind of turned into a meaningless title, but the academic establishment still views it as a holy crown.
Another part of the problem of universal genius is that topics, especially in the field of science, have become so vast with so many questions it's almost impossible to be a universal genius and simultaneously understand a topic well enough to start doing groundbreaking research. This is especially true in something like physics, where there are so many different fields (astrophysics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, computational physics, theoretical physics, etc.) it's impossible to be an expert in one field without sacrificing knowledge in another. So I think part of the death of the universal genius is that humans have acquired so much knowledge in the past 100 years (and with that knowledge, endless questions that need to be answered) it would be physically impossible for someone to be a universal genius. They would just be a jack of all traits, master of none; having a surface level understanding of most things.
As for education reform, I'm an American and our public schools are a joke. There have been so many changes to the system that are based on working for a capitalism system rather than focusing on brain development and fostering the intellect. My personal opinion on any form of education is that it is at it's best when a gifted student has a good personal mentor. Many of the great universal geniuses of the past (like da vinci) had more of a mentorship than an formal education by todays standards that proved very beneficial, especially when the student is eager to learn.
@@letBIGGIErest Thanks for your reply I agree mostly on your topics but I beg to differ that true geniuses are not allowed to mature who show multiple intelligences interests in multiple fields yet they are tortured by their parents, academia and peers which results in them development issues including depression , anxiety,mental issues.Who knows how many geniuses have been lost to this system.I consider Nikola Tesla to be true genius of the 21st century.
could you explain the cause/causes for undeveloped gifted individuals due to poor development during the youth.
Edison didn't invent the lightbulb and the key part to commercializing it.. the carbon filament..was invented by Lewis Latimer.....but that's a conversation for another day
Good stuff in this video.. There's some stuff I've read about how the word "genius" used to be understood in a way that didn't deify the person so much
Thank you for showing who commercialised the lightbulb! And who developed the filament.
consider to open a discord channel, I believe it would be quite helpful for you
This please
Without Pointcarrie there would be no Special Relativity, no General Relativity, no Einstein.
I think individual geniuses exist in the sense of superior cognitive ability, but I see what you're saying about genius in the sense of works of genius.
What about Isaac Newton? Worked alone, just a genius?
You will probably trigger a lot of Einstein fans :D :D
If I get into Mensa and apply for the membership card do they give me a "disturbance free" place to live?
No. Just a completely useless membership card and the right to attend crappy events ;)
@@Abel.Abelson oh alright😂
Can you please make a video on metaphysics.
That's a really vast subject, what would you like to discuss more precisely?
@@Abel.Abelson the science of the soul.
what do you think of elon musk
I'm not a big fan, but that's personal preference. Science says we're not going to be able to really colonize Mars for centuries to come, so he's burning a lot of kerosene for a project that's only benefiting himself in the end.
@@Abel.Abelson thank you for your reply. I like your content and I think may be I am gifted. I have passed mensa pretest I have got 126 as Iq score. In fact, I am sort of an atypical person: I felt some mismatch regarding my social interaction with people, and I am always driven to learn more and discover how things work.
The most important thing is to know, and realize, and accept, your differences, which may be profound or less profound, but they're there, and go from there. Specifically "gifted" or not is not really the question.
i have different definition from yours. it is that they have a near if not one of a kind understanding of something. like Albert Einstein and his view of reality.
Hello Abel, are you INTP???
(So far, you've been ignoring my questions but oh well)
Hi, sorry for not answering before :) I did Myer-Briggs a long time ago, definutely turned out IN something but don't remember the rest. I'm not all that into Myer-Briggs actually, it also seems that Big Five is actually the only model that's academically accepted these days. You can do Big Five tests for free on the internet, they're interesting - as far as these tests go...
@@Abel.Abelson Big Five is as scientifically unreliable as MBTI lol It's just less hated by psychology bigshots!
Carl Jung's discovery of the 8 cognitive functions and psychological types comprised therewith is based on real life, it's not a just a theory. You are missing out on a huge chunk of extremely pertinent (sometimes crucial) info if you dismiss the existence of CFs and types, I could never do that as a fellow gifted.
PS: the two theories are describing different things, except the intro/extraversion scale. Knowing what cognitive functions you and other humans use is just a big set of keys that opens many doors that you didn't have access to before.
@@Abel.Abelson Carlos Tinoco has two great books on giftedness that go unconventional ways! Really cool stuff.
His (now somewhat deserted) channel has quite a few videos someone has subbed in English, I highly recommend his content: _demonstrer_
ua-cam.com/channels/TFSbMzp7yjguxH3eZU77CQ.html
Man i am like you and i wanna say... CHILL... OK?
Yeah Bro, I'm chillin', I'm chillin'...
@@Abel.Abelson it's ok to be yourself. Do not think about people like Einstein, they were different. Different life, dfferent destiny. You have nothing to prove to yourself
wheres the other guy/gal who has realized that atomic physics is a result of Darwinian evolution ?