Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

The other crucial discovery we made researching our book GENIUS INTELLIGENCE: Secret Techniques and Technologies to Increase IQ is that higher intelligence is not necessarily something you’re born with or genetically predisposed toward. In fact, most instances of above-the-ordinary intelligences are usually acquired thru superior learning techniques – many of which we cover in detail in this book.

Reading about the greatest minds in history, including recent history, more often than not reveals the individuals concerned (or people close to them) employed specific learning methods. The examples we cite throughout this book shatter the myth that geniuses are always born with exceptional intelligence and/or talent.

Certainly, there are those born with amazing abilities not fostered by educational methods, but our research has revealed these naturally gifted geniuses are definitely the exception, not the norm.

A classic example of this natural born genius myth is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart whom most believe was simply a wunderkind, or virtuoso, from infancy. Many brain researchers have also described the Austrian composer as someone who just had incredible musical and artistic abilities from birth.

However, as with most geniuses, there is a significant body of evidence to support the contentious theory that Mozart’s brilliance was as much the result of nurture as it was nature, if not more so.

It is true the musical prodigy was composing by five, and by seven or so he was performing for audiences throughout Europe. And while achievements like that, at those early ages, are certainly extraordinary, the key point is that Mozart came from a musical family and was pushed to excel musically. As soon as he could walk and talk, in fact, or even earlier if you stop to consider he was exposed to classical compositions while still in his mother’s womb.

The young Mozart’s father Leopold was a renowned composer in his own right and an ambitious musical teacher who wanted his son to achieve greatness. History tells us that Leopold forced Mozart Junior to practice for many hours a day even before he had reached school age.

It has been estimated that by the time Mozart was six he had already spent about 4000 hours studying music.

Perhaps a modern-day equivalent to Mozart’s father would be someone like Richard Williams, father of legendary American tennis champions Serena Williams and Venus Williams. Upon deciding tennis was the way out of the ‘ghetto’, Williams Sr. pushed his daughters day after day from a young age in his relentless quest for them to become world champions.

Classical music experts have noted that many of Mozart’s childhood compositions are mostly rearrangements of other (older) composers’ works. Not being experts in classical music – or any music for that matter – we can’t comment, but if true that would further undermine the enduring myth about the great composer being an innate genius who could rely solely on his natural talent and who hardly needed to practice.

We found that nine out of ten biographies of geniuses reveal forgotten or previously unmentioned examples of intelligence-enhancing techniques and/or technologies these individuals employed on their path to greatness.

Traditionally, IQ has been perceived as a genetic trait in much the same way an individual’s height or body type is perceived – in other words a fixed trait, or state, and therefore (thought to be) something that could never be altered.

In recent years, however, there has been an explosion of new scientific studies, which make a mockery of that assumption. These show that cognitive training, whether by mental techniques or brain enhancement technologies, can definitely deliver intelligence-boosting effects.

Certainly, you need some natural aptitude to excel in most facets of life – be it mental, physical or artistic – but if genius was simply a matter of inheriting good genes, then many more of us would be geniuses.

This sounds interesting. I do believe genius is inherited, although it has to be nurtured. Mozart's genius is innate but if he had been born into another family, he would not have had the tools or the guidance to develop it. Like the boy in this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

I believe his talent/genius is innate and all his parents have done is give him the tools to develop it.

I look forward to reading your book when it comes out.

A.D. wrote: "This sounds interesting. I do believe genius is inherited, although it has to be nurtured. Mozart's genius is innate but if he had been born into another family, he would not have had the tools or ..."

Thanks A.D.
Interesting article about the Serbian child prodigy.

A.D. wrote: "This sounds interesting. I do believe genius is inherited, although it has to be nurtured. Mozart's genius is innate but if he had been born into another family, he would not have had the tools or ..."

How much is inherited (nature) and how much is down to nurture?...To me that's the intriguing question. I used to think genius was a question of nature being a long ways ahead of nurture...but research tells me the nurture side of the equation is very important...perhaps AS important. (I guess if I really was a genius I'd know the answer to that one)!

Lance wrote: How much is inherited (nature) and how much is down to nurture?...To me that's the intriguing question. I used to think genius was a question of nature being a long ways ahead of nurture...

It is a really interesting question. Nurture plays an important part and I wonder if without it, geniuses would still be able to develop as well if at all.

A.D. wrote: "Lance wrote: How much is inherited (nature) and how much is down to nurture?...To me that's the intriguing question. I used to think genius was a question of nature being a long ways ahead of nurtu..."

Develop yes but certainly not as well me thinks.

This is an interesting article. I've read some new evidence about these things, one of them being the fact that if you read to your child, the difference in IQ from not reading at all to your child might be as high as ten points!

About Mozart, there has always been this (mis)conception that he never had to use a piano to compose, he only used his head. Apparently, that's not completely true, which has been shown in a letter that he sent to his father, saying he couldn't complete a certain composition because there was no pianoforte in the flat in which he was staying.

There definitely exists such a thing as a genius myth. The whole notion of a genius has to be more modest in order to be more accurate, I believe.

Hi Mikael,
I totally agree with all you say/imply about Mozart and geniuses in general.
And yes, reading to your child while it's still in the womb as well as while it's still an infant, has been shown to make a big difference in intelligence.

I believe nurture has a lot to do with it. My mother read to me when I was little. By the time I was four, I could read on my own. I tend to do well on IQ tests but I think that just means I'm good at those types of tests.

I'm not sure IQ really predicts anything other than the ability to do well on certain types of standardized tests. Tests which are, I might add, culturally biased toward white middle class males.

I'm pretty sure artistic and intellectual talents can be developed. There's a quote attributed to Einstein that genius is 99% perspiration. I believe that. I'm pretty good at certain aspects of my job that I've done a lot. OTOH, I'm a mediocre guitar player because I don't practice very often or for very long.

Jim wrote: "I believe nurture has a lot to do with it. My mother read to me when I was little. By the time I was four, I could read on my own. I tend to do well on IQ tests but I think that just means I'm g..."

Agree with all you say, Jim, especially about IQ tests not really being a good or accurate indicator of real intelligence. And yes, it's surprising how much talent/ability/skill can be developed. Einstein's quote about genius is bang on the money in my opinion.

Speaking of IQ...
Interesting that the top countries for IQ (above the worldwide 100 IQ average) are all Asian. But strange that China doesn't rank. If memory serves the Chinese are on a par with Americans with a recorded average IQ of 98.

aren't IQ tests just tests of spatial ability? if they were supposed to show actual intelligence...don't you think they would have something in any way showing how you would actually perform ion a school setting?

they are targeted towards a specific type of person, and they definitely fall short..because there are a lot of really smart people out there who cannot take a standardised test and do well on it, nor take an IQ that shows their actual intelligence.

I am one of those people who can take a test on something I've learnt..and do very well...but give me a standardised tes/IQ test, and simply because they are timed..I do poorly

Catherine wrote: "aren't IQ tests just tests of spatial ability? if they were supposed to show actual intelligence...don't you think they would have something in any way showing how you would actually perform ion a ..."

Agreed - real intelligence is probably impossible to test. It probably shows up more in what people DO in life rather than how they SCORE in tests.

Catherine wrote: "aren't IQ tests just tests of spatial ability? if they were supposed to show actual intelligence...don't you think they would have something in any way showing how you would actually perform ion a ..."

My husband worked for UC Berkley at Hat Creek Radio Observatory in 2001. They were talking about doing away with the SAT and ACT entrance test because they were only providing one kind of student and screening out the more creative. They did not do this of course because the testing of students is a huge business. HUGE!

But I was listening to The Greek Wayand she was saying that the word school comes from Greek and it means "leisure". This is far from the Western idea of school which is more like a school of fish or social control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ogCc...

Cosmic wrote: "But I was listening to The Greek Wayand she was saying that the word school comes from Greek and it means "leisure". This is far from the Western idea of school which is more like a school of fish or social control...."

Very interesting insight, Cosmic.
Thanks.

I just added The Greek Way and another book The Roman Way to my tbr list. they both look o be very interesting reads.


I agree...the "western"way is definitely not about "leisure". kids today are pushed to the brink...and very often...nit allowed to be children at all.

I have three children who I unschooled. They are now 22, 17 and 14. I wanted to homeschool them and then I realized that I was just trying to mimic the school environment, so I stopped. I immersed them in anything they were interested in and provided them with any resources they needed to delve deeper into their interests. They have done more things in their lives than most adults and with more success but more important to me, they are happy and productive with their lives.

"Genius", I believe, is a result of immersion and doing something so intently that you lose track of space/time and become one with the flow of the activity. I feel it then somehow permeates your entire DNA and becomes so familiar it becomes an intimate part of you. You become one with the activity. Mozart WAS music. The Williams' gals ARE tennis.

Regular (compulsory, mainstream and public) schooling is filled with pattern interrupts and purposefully designed breaks concentration and flow. It dumbs down the child and turns him into an unquestioning, hater of learning (i.e. “school sucks so learning sucks”). Follow the authority, do not ask deep penetrating questions, stay in your place and do as you are told.

This is the exact opposite of immersion. To pull children out of each subject after just dipping their toe into the water and thereby breaking their focus, concentration and interest is damaging to the learning process.

And they wonder why the culture is filled with these disorders such as ADD? The teacher says "okay kids, not we are going to learn science", they read a chapter, pull out the microscope, get the slides ready and then ...ring - oops - sorry! Time to move on to the next class.

I think to excel at anything you need to have undisturbed time to delve into it and make it a part of your very being. My only rule and motto I followed, my only curriculum, per se, was to instill in them a LOVE of learning in such a way, they would question everything and want to delve deeper into the subjects which drew them in naturally. All were late readers, but completely skipped the "One fish, two fish..." or "see spot run" books and went from me reading to them to picking up books like The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. People do not believe that but in Waldorf Schools, that is the norm.

I am not saying that my kids are what society would measure as "geniuses" - they are far from it, but they do grasp concepts very quickly and have been armed with a powerful tool which has proven to serve them very well, and that is truly loving to learn. When they have an interest, they pursue it as though it is their air, food and water. It calls to them, permeates their very being and they dance with it until they know it as intimately as they know themselves.

Best of all, it gives them great confidence and makes them happy!
Lucky for me, it also gives me something to write about. ;-)

Born To Learn: How Children Learn Without Schooling

Kytka wrote: ""Genius", I believe, is a result of immersion and doing something so intently that you lose track of space/time and become one with the flow of the activity. I feel it then somehow permeates your entire DNA and becomes so familiar it becomes an intimate part of you. You become one with the activity. Mozart WAS music. The Williams' gals ARE tennis...."

Yes, Yes, YES!

This is a good watch for those of you who may not have seen it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFc...

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=6jZHN...

Is also very good!

Genius is a subjective term, as we have noted, depending on how one defines it. The question of it being manipulated by exercises is accurate, more so than the nature vs nurture theories many have explored. I do know we are born with a specific wiring, but much of our brain capacity is malleable. I am a twin, for instance, We both scored very high on those 2nd grade IQ tests, which I am not sure have much validation. We are not identical, but grew up in the same room, the same family order, and were exposed to everything the same way together. Our emotional wiring is very different. I displayed much more curiosity, read a great deal, am a visual artist, and I write, where as she has add, is not motivated, and did not like going to school. I continue to add new and challenging things to learn as I age..languages, instruments, she has not. The CHOICES we make, and more specially, our ability to recognize choice reflects the conditions in which a highly talented or productive mind might flourish. Many many people with high intelligence have little confidence, and without confidence one cannot achieve the ability to concentrate for long periods of time in order to produce something the general public might describe as coming from a genius. Confidence is not solely derived from parenting. It's part of our wiring as well and what we respond to in the larger social world…(.a sometimes awkward, threatening, mean spirited and competitive animal world).I have observed that the ability to practice practice practice for ten hours daily…in other words, myopic hyper focusing, can achieve immense results when achieving great ability in whatever particular pursuit one is either naturally inclined towards, or desires, regardless of what talent they are born with. The need for validation is often the road block to greatness. Creativity is a very interactive process, involves a great deal of solitude and concentration, and often leads us to the notion that a "genius" is only such in their one specific achievement (art, music, writing, etc). I am a believer of Nature over nurture, being an observing twin, but I also believe we can change nature when we interact with it properly. Okay, now my wish has been fulfilled and it is time for me to disappear. Poof.

Deborah wrote: "Genius is a subjective term, as we have noted, depending on how one defines it. The question of it being manipulated by exercises is accurate, more so than the nature vs nurture theories many have ..."

Excellent thanks Deborah! So much to ponder on in your contribution. The nature vs. nurture debate is an interesting one with respect to boosting intelligence. You have raised some good points for the nature side of the debate.

If we hear from you again we'll know you didn't actually disappear...

Thanks Lance. It would be interesting to have a separate discussion revolving around the Nature vs Nurture question, although I fear the answers, thoughts and potential comments will be as convoluted as the subject itself!
Perhaps it isn't "Nurture VS Nature", but "Nurture AND Nature": the varied points and parallels in which they play on one another and what those variances have the potential of producing in a person or in nature.

Deborah wrote: "Thanks Lance. It would be interesting to have a separate discussion revolving around the Nature vs Nurture question, although I fear the answers, thoughts and potential comments will be as convolut..."

Yeah, it's definitely Nurture AND Nature. You need a certain amount of natural intelligence (at least say average intelligence) to start with. But, at least according to my research, nurture is extremely underrated and nature is often a bit overrated in other theories I've read on this subject.

There's a group poll currently running on this exact subject: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

The poll asks the following question:
Do you believe genius-level intelligence is primarily the result of nature (genes) or nurture (education, environment, parenting etc)?

Good for you Kyta. I have trouble believing in the genius status. Yes, some people have incredible memories for facts and numbers. They are considered blessed with high intelligence. But really? I think intelligence comes from being able to investigate thought and make discerning judgments of the "truth" of something and this requires a special ability of weighing the facts plus using our innate forms of deduction. Life experiences, reading and experiencing the world and all it's cultures allows for a more intelligent perception of what truth may be, in MHO.

James Morcan wrote: "There's a group poll currently running on this exact subject. The poll asks the following question:
Do you believe genius-level intelligence is primarily the result of nature (genes) or nurture (education, environment, parenting etc)?
..."

Voting on the above poll has now ended and the results were as follows:

47.1% voted Both are equally important
25% voted Nature
23.5% voted Nurture
4.4% voted Unsure

You can read the comments section of the poll here:
https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

Interesting straw man. I'm intrigued to know where anyone actually says that Mozart was 'an innate genius who could rely solely on his natural talent and who hardly needed to practice'. As for IQ, does anyone seriously consider it an objective measure?
Furthermore, 'Traditionally, IQ has been perceived as a genetic trait in much the same way an individual’s height or body type is perceived – in other words a fixed trait, or state, and therefore (thought to be) something that could never be altered.' Really? There are people who believe that height is pre-destined and in no way affected by environmental factors?
And finally, 'Certainly, you need some natural aptitude to excel in most facets of life – be it mental, physical or artistic – but if genius was simply a matter of inheriting good genes, then many more of us would be geniuses' ... yes, but if genius were genetically inherited, we'd have spotted that one, not to mention the fact that by definition they'd be exceptional genes ...

Pete wrote: "Interesting straw man. I'm intrigued to know where anyone actually says that Mozart was 'an innate genius who could rely solely on his natural talent and who hardly needed to practice'. As for IQ, ..."

Pete,

I agree that IQ is not necessarily an objective measure and personally I don't give IQ a lot of credence. In saying that, I don't think IQ can be wholly dismissed and it probably is indicative of high intelligence in many regards...but it's certainly not definitive so I know what you're getting at.

Even if it is not the best objective measure of intelligence as you and I appear to believe, IQ is still a good reference point for the mass public as they immediately relate it to the subject of intelligence and "high IQ individual" is something they instantly understand.

And yes, height is primarily genetic - hence entire families/bloodlines being taller than others. Check out this article from the Museum of Technology by a leading geneticist on how our genes lead to our height: http://genetics.thetech.org/original_...

Now obviously if you starve a child or feed them a poor diet that would stunt their growth and potentially override their good height genes in this regard. But primarily, height or body type is mostly about genetics.

Suggest you research what the terms "innate genius" and "inborn genius" means, if you're interested in researching further and assuming that you have not read about these things before. Also, look up articles/essays on "nature vs nurture" meaning genetics (nature) vs environmental factors/individual determination/teaching etc (nurture).

Perhaps a good example is 5 children all brought up under the same roof (but not related by blood), and therefore have identical or at least extremely similar environmental factors/teaching (nurture) and one turns out to be a genius or child prodigy and the other four exhibit only average intelligence with no special traits. In this example, the assumption is the genius child has inherited more advanced genes regarding mental abilities.

Neuroscientists definitely believe high intelligence and mentally gifted people are at least partly displaying these traits due to the genes they have inherited. And in fact, most neuroscientists believe genetics is a major factor in intelligence and mental abilities.

You are right of course that nurture with environmental factors and teaching and individual aptitude is an extremely important factor. But with child prodigies, especially extremely young children who do amazing feats under the age of 2 years of age, these examples are likely in most cases to be innate geniuses rather than non-genetic factors as there has not been enough time to influence the child.

And Mozart has commonly and repeatedly (as in for decades, if not a century) been reported in various books and articles as being such an innate genius who was extremely naturally gifted. Meaning, there's been a common myth about him that he was composing so young that he was essentially a "natural born genius". I would estimate perhaps 95 or even 99% of the public have this opinion of Mozart as the myth has been told over and over again.

Turns out, however, he appears to have been much more an example of nurture and was expertly honed by his father in this regard and born into a family where music was everywhere.

Also, there are plenty of things in the brain that are believed by scientists to be genetically inherited that cannot (yet) be isolated. So it's not so much a case of spotting a genius gene as you seem to be implying. I don't think it's that simple but rather it's a person's overall genetic make-up.

But to clarify, and as you can see if you look at other posts I've made in this section of the group, I personally believe nurture is a more important factor in most geniuses. Genetics are part of the equation, but I think the Mozart example reveals that what we often perceive as a genetically inherited gift is often something that has been developed consciously or unconsciously through environmental factors or teaching or other influences (e.g. brain enhancement technologies) in an individual's life.

I have to agree mostly with your feelings on this one James. A wise person I knew told me that anybody who was focused, had a desire to excel, and practiced the art or ability to which they aspired, would be able to accomplish perfection in that thing. And of course, if it was genetic, it would be made easier. One could get away with not practicing so much.

However, there is a particular ability that can't be practiced to reach perfection and that is problem solving as in mathematics and science subject. However those people who have an innate ability in this field often have a lesser ability in other skills like communication, empathy, social issues, following instructions from another experienced person in another field, organization, practical living etc.

James, you haven't really got my point - I agree with you, I just don't think anyone who has thought about the question for more than a minute or three would come to any other conclusion.
And as for your rather patronising comment re researching what the terms 'innate genius' and 'inborn genius' mean, perhaps you might look up 'straw man' ...

Pete wrote: "James, you haven't really got my point - I agree with you, I just don't think anyone who has thought about the question for more than a minute or three would come to any other conclusion.
And as fo..."

Pete, I know what straw man means.
Also, I don't believe what I wrote was patronizing as I wanted to avoid any implication that I know more than you and that's why I purposefully added "assuming that you have not read about these things before" - meaning if you have already researched these things then obviously there's no need to research further.

Was simply sharing ideas on suggested further research, not just for yourself but also for other members...

James, I know you know. That was my point ... well, my second point, other than the original one!
As for what you wrote, come on, you expect me to believe that?
Oh, and I know what "assuming that you have not read about these things before" means, both in isolation and in context.
I'll be sure to write with brutal clarity in future, just so there's no possibility of misapprehension!

Pete wrote: "James, I know you know. That was my point ... well, my second point, other than the original one!
As for what you wrote, come on, you expect me to believe that?
Oh, and I know what "assuming that ..."

You've completely lost me Pete and I have no idea what we are arguing about if as you say you agree with what I wrote...I welcome your posts and in no way felt patronizing toward you.

Remember I'm not a mind-reader and I have no idea what your knowledge base is on any given subject, so if merely suggesting books or essays that I personally found helpful is patronizing to you, then that's only your interpretation of my words if you think about it.

Also, even if by chance I did have more knowledge on any given subject than another person, I try to never forget that that's only ONE subject. Only a fool would mistake superior knowledge or understanding in one subject for being more intelligent than someone else overall. And I'm not saying I know more than you on this genius subject, just using an example here to make a point.

So if you have unique insights on this subject, as it now appears you're well-read in this area, then please go ahead and share your observations and understandings and I'd be delighted to learn from you as I'm sure other members will be.

Laureen wrote: "I have to agree mostly with your feelings on this one James. A wise person I knew told me that anybody who was focused, had a desire to excel, and practiced the art or ability to which they aspire..."

Good points, Laureen.

James, we're arguing about the argument! That's how meta we've got ... yes, I do agree that for exceptional achievement a combination of innate predisposition towards a certain discipline (where such a predisposition is possible) and directed and intelligent study is necessary.
Gladwell has a lot to answer for, as his 10,000hrs=virtuosity ignores the fact that only those with a predisposition (or what some term 'talent') will experience the rewards from practise quickly enough to keep them going ...
People often mistake the appearance of ease for lack of work, when it's the opposite - sprezzatura, as Castiglione termed it.
Hard work alone can trump talent, but not talent plus hard work.
There is an argument that one of the qualities shared by exceptional individuals is the capacity and will to work exceptionally hard ... I think it's hard to argue against.
The real question is not the one answered here, as it's too simplistic and, frankly, obvious. The real question is what, exactly, is 'talent' ... now that's a tough one, no?

Pete wrote: "James, we're arguing about the argument! ..."

Tell me about it!

And I like all your other points (food for thought) and you raise very interesting questions off those points. Talent, like genius, is a very difficult thing to define - many authors and speakers have tried to define talent but there's no definite answer as far as I've noticed. Sometimes it's in the eye of the beholder, I suspect, but feel free to share your own definition of talent which I for one would be interesting in reading.

Also, I really like your summary of what it takes for exceptional achievement: "a combination of innate predisposition towards a certain discipline (where such a predisposition is possible) and directed and intelligent study is necessary."
Nice one!

James, just a wee codacil to this discussion, bearing in mind your appreciation of my "summary of what it takes for exceptional achievement: "a combination of innate predisposition towards a certain discipline (where such a predisposition is possible) and directed and intelligent study is necessary."

Your piece begins with the statement that "higher intelligence is not necessarily something you’re born with or genetically predisposed toward. In fact, most instances of above-the-ordinary intelligences are usually acquired thru superior learning techniques".

Two problems here:

The first is that you then go on primarily to discuss musical genius, without any data to suggest Mozart had extraordinary intelligence. The assumption that a) a musical genius has a high IQ and that (as discussed) IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence is dubious, plus b) you measure genius by extraordinary achievement (reasonably so) and c) you then discuss mere talent will lead to category errors.

The second is that my summary (which you 'really like') flat out contradicts your opening statement, assuming that exceptional achievement is an indicator of higher intelligence ('higher intelligence is not necessarily something you’re born with or genetically predisposed toward').

That's why I think your argument is poor (but your conclusions largely correct)!

Pete wrote: "your argument is poor (but your conclusions largely correct)!..."

Pete, me old mate...
This feels like an infinite court case in which I'm up against a lawyer who keeps telling me we agree, but then comes back every so often trying to frame me on technicalities!! I get the feeling we're gonna be splitting hairs for eternity here, brother...Your favourite movie isn't Groundhog Day by any chance, is it? :)

I'm also losing track of what we are arguing about or disagreeing about if as you keep saying we both agree that most people called geniuses (like Mozart) were probably not born that way but rather honed to be that way (by themselves and/or by others).
That, in a nutshell, was the point of the original post and I only used Mozart as the example as he is probably the most commonly referred to inborn genius (which I believe is a myth).

Also, as long as the conclusions I make are largely correct, as you say, then that's the main thing I would argue (no pun intended!).
I however also stand by the argument I make to lead to those conclusions - it's simply pointing out that Mozart was not likely to have been an inborn genius who just popped out of the womb and was composing brilliant musical arrangements (as per the popular myth about him). As you no doubt are aware, there are some inborn geniuses who do incredible feats even before walking, but they are much rarer than is supposed and according to my research I don't think Mozart fits the bill at all (nor does it appear you do either).

To clarify, I liked (upon a quick reading) your basic summary or opinion of what it takes to pull off exceptional achievement - which I read to mean you have to have at least some genetic predisposition or a certain level of intelligence but that overall it's equally if not more about how hard and intelligently you study/work and apply yourself. Did I interpret what you wrote correctly, or were you trying to indicate something else?

Anyway, my "really liking" a single (isolated) statement you make doesn't mean I agree with every nuance of your debate or critique of course and there are also a lot of shades of grey in such discussions...Especially with such hard to define subjects as intelligence, IQ, talent and genius. And I don't agree that your statement of what it takes to create exceptional achievement "flat out contradicts" or even contradicts in general my opening statement once you consider all the subtleties and ambiguities of the entire subject.

I think you might be overthinking and overanalysing my post and looking for hidden meanings or deeper contexts where perhaps there are none in this instance - possibly this is due to semantics and language can be a bitch for misunderstandings. Plus, you might be misreading some of my statements or putting words in my mouth (e.g. nowhere did I write or even imply that "mere talent will lead to category errors" as you stated).

Again, the sole point of the original post is simply to attempt to shatter or challenge the commonly accepted myth (which has been told over and over again in books and popular media) that most geniuses were/are just born super smart or extremely gifted...especially in the case of young prodigies like Mozart. We both seem to agree on this whole point, right?

As to you questioning Mozart's intelligence and whether he had above average intellect...Well, again that's moving into another ambiguous grey area (aka impossible to define/prove), but I think most in our society would take it as an absolute given that Mozart had an exceptionally high intelligence if not was a genius. Impossible to prove of course as the man's now dead! However, I maintain most in discussions of Mozart would assume his exceptional achievements in the field of classical music is a very strong indication of high intelligence and genius abilities.

In fact, I think in our society most would say Mozart is to music what Da Vinci is to art or Einstein is to science. So given that most would accept genius = high intelligence/IQ, then with Mozart we are talking about one of the most respected geniuses of all time. But keep in mind, I am not necessarily saying that intelligence is something that one is born with either - many studies have indicated high intelligence can actually be developed over time in ones life rather than being locked genetically.

You keep stating (your opinion) that what I've written is very "poor" and that the entire discussion is a straw man argument and that it's soooo simplistic that it hardly needs discussing...And yet here we are still discussing the subject between ourselves and others...That seems to imply it perhaps is a subject that deserves to be discussed and that there is interest from not just us but other group members.

If you're interested, we ran a poll recently in this group asking members if they "believe genius-level intelligence is primarily the result of nature (genes) or nurture (education, environment, parenting etc)?"

Results were very evenly split and everyone has a different opinion and/or understanding of the matter.

Check out the comments section beneath the poll which shows how divided people are and how complex a subject it is: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

You may notice that the first comment beneath the poll is by a doctor and neurologist who states "Recent autopsy results from Einstein's brain shows that he was definitely hard wired differently than most."

I assume this neurologist (who also states he "used to work in the hospital where Einstein died and had his brain removed") believes genius abilities are therefore much more about what you are born with (nature) rather than a person's application (nurture) - which would indicate his opinion on genius abilities is the opposite to yours and mine...

Here's another tiny bit of evidence (note that's evidence, not proof) to support the nurture side of the debate:

Several great classical music composers utilized hypnotism including Seigei Rachmaninoff who after a post-hypnotic suggestion given by early hypnosis specialist Nikolai Dahl, composed his much loved Second Piano Concerto. Mozart also used hypnotism as a creative aid and his opera Cosi Fan Tutte was entirely composed in a hypnotic trance.


For more on hypnotism as a potential way to optimize mental performance, and to read about which other geniuses or high achievers besides great composers have utilized hypnotism, check out this post here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Of course, hypnotism is one of about a million different methods geniuses like Mozart and Einstein have used over the years to enhance whatever brain they were born with. Some of the other mental techniques used by great in their fields are also mentioned in other posts in this section of the group.

James,
I'm just trying to hone the argument. There is a problem with the conflation of genius with intelligence, just as there is a problem with mixing talent and genius.

I know your 'liking' was explicitly concerned with that one statement indeed.

As for 'Plus, you might be misreading some of my statements or putting words in my mouth (e.g. nowhere did I write or even imply that "mere talent will lead to category errors" as you stated).' I can see why you thought I implied that you said that - poor expression on my part ... extract the c), stick a which before will and you'll see what I meant (but failed) to say.

I agree that Mozart's achievements justify his deserving the tag 'genius', but the intelligence part lacks data unless you define it by genius. Then the question is are people born with relatively 'fixed' intellectual capacities which are then subject to the sorts of training you observe? Then the innate intelligence is not intelligence as such but potential - just as physically we all seem to have fixed limits, reachable only through hard work. Nature + nurture.
Natural potential fulfilled by nurture. Or strangled by it.

Does hypnotism enhance the brain or release its potential?

The brain is just another muscle, albeit an astounding one. The question is whether we consider intelligence something enhanced or realised, and in this we're confused by education, which can so easily fool us into believing we or others are more/less intelligent than others or us.

I do think the nature/nurture debate is pretty much a straw man, indeed. The real question(s) we need to consider is 'what is intelligence'? Or even what do we mean by intelligence, talent, genius ... these are words we bandy about with gay abandon (not to mention the appalling 'gifted'), without any clear idea of their meaning.

That's why I say your conclusion is right but your argument poor ... but *the* argument is a good one, one which I think is helping us both hone our thoughts. As for the conclusions being the only important thing, well ... I'm not going there!

Finally: where I talk straw men, you shatter myths - we both know hyperbole sells (as did Mozart) ...

Exactly what is the definition of intelligence? I am not highly educated and I have not read all of this discussion so forgive me if this has been discussed. How is a persons IQ arrived at? Yeah, I know there are formatted tests for rating one's IQ but what are they actually measuring?

I know people who have been "given" high IQ status and yet they appear to lack what we call common sense which, in my mind, is far more advantageous in navigating the complexities of life than a high IQ. If we could have both, it would definitely be optimal.

I think it is a bit like someone who becomes blind and then develops almost supernatural enhancement of their other senses like hearing, touch and smell to compensate. I think people with high IQs take it for granted that they know more than others but don't seem to develop other important social and physical skills that would add to their deductive mental abilities. Most high IQ minds only associate with other high IQ minds which does nothing to develop other skills. It is one thing to gather statistics, make observations, and come up with conclusions but in the real world we know that statistics can be manipulated to produce an outcome which supports our own "belief".

Also, it is handy to be able to multiply 1387 x 5691 in 2 seconds and it would be even more handy to have the ability to retain facts in our memory (photographic memory); also, in my case, I would like to be able to speed read. Now speed reading is something we can definitely train ourselves to do, those of us who have the time to practice that is.

Laureen wrote: "Exactly what is the definition of intelligence? I am not highly educated and I have not read all of this discussion so forgive me if this has been discussed. How is a persons IQ arrived at? Yeah..."
Thereby hangs the tale, Laureen. It is easy to mistake education and erudition for intelligence, just as many mistake information for knowledge.
As for what an IQ test measures, it's primarily one's ability to negotiate IQ tests, which may or may not be relevant.
You're right to ask the question, and there isn't an objective answer. IQ gives an indication of one's ability to manipulate verbal, spatial and numerical concepts, yes, but it only gives part of the picture.
I hold a PhD. Does this prove I'm intelligent? Perhaps, but it does demonstrate that I am stubborn, bloody-minded and determined. Or, at least, I was once.
I can also boil an egg.

Good for you Pete. Boiling an egg is not to be laughed at. Few people can do it to perfection. If you like soft boiled - do you like it runny or the yoke just soft. Hard-boiled to the chalky stage or just melt in your mouth soft/firm. Trying to time the boil to perfection takes patience and trial-&-error.

Determination is a good trait to have. If you have a high IQ! (whatever that is) but no ability to focus on a problem with determination then you are wasting your time in my opinion. Thanks for the clarification Pete.

Lance Morcan wrote: "A.D. wrote: "This sounds interesting. I do believe genius is inherited, although it has to be nurtured. Mozart's genius is innate but if he had been born into another family, he would not have had ..."

Lance, it is a question of opening a door in your mind and letting yourself out. In a nurturing environment the self can develop - in a suppressive one, where somebody has no space to explore possibilities, their physical and mental growth can become stunted. If you pour water onto a plant and keep it where it can get more than adequate sunlight, it will grow to its full potential. Put it in the dark and it will strain to reach the light. Deprive it of water and it will simply die.

Laureen wrote: "Good for you Pete. Boiling an egg is not to be laughed at. Few people can do it to perfection. If you like soft boiled - do you like it runny or the yoke just soft. Hard-boiled to the chalky stage ..."

Did you know that after signing The Magna Carter, King John hated runny mead (poor pun but I couldn't resist): Humour and freedom to grow, go together as it implies lightness of being as seriousness and suppression / repression go together but in the opposite direction - hence the ancients talking about this subject

Mozart Wasn’t Born A Musical Genius http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/27/m...

"Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is often thought of as someone who was born with natural talent. However, the earliest pieces by Wolfgang, supposedly done when he was a child, are in his father’s handwriting, making it unclear as to who wrote the music. Also, his father was a music teacher who taught Wolfgang from a young age, so that when he did start performing, he actually had been training extensively and routinely with a professional instructor for years."

Personally, I think Mozart did have natural talent. There is no doubt his father helped, but talent alone won't get you anywhere - you have to be shown how to use it. I don't doubt Leopold "edited" Wolfgang's music, however there are things Wolfgang did that I don't believe any amount off training would achieve for any normal person. For example, Gregori Allegri's "Miserere" was a Vatican secret. Nobody knew the score. Mozart attended ONE HEARING, and went away and wrote the whole thing down, and went back once more just to check on a couple of points. In his last symphonies, he did not write down the score - he sat down and wrote out the first violin part for the entire work (all four movements), then he did the same for the second violin, and so on. He had the entire work, and all the harmonies and counterpoint worked out in his head before he wrote anything down, and he only did that to give it to performers. Compare that with Beethoven, who was undoubtedly a genius, but he would write everything down painfully slowly, and do multiple edits and drafts.