"Talent is Overrated"? (This blew my mind slightly)

[Slim Fiasco]

^Every time an athlete thanks god, I feel like choking them. What about thanking yourself for working so hard, you bitch?

[Eedee]

^Every time an athlete thanks god, I feel like choking them. What about thanking yourself for working so hard, you bitch?

Or the fucking obvious flip side to that statement, which is basically: "God loves me more than my opponents. Roflcopter to maximum altitude!"

[_Hawk_]

Yeah exactly - all genius is a process.

People jump to mythical or overblown explanations when they don't understand things and don't care to try to really understand them.

I had an idea for a book a long time ago about how intelligence + obsession + passion = genius, basically. I won't give it all away as I still plan on writing it but... 'genius' is just a word we give to the amounted obsession of a very passionate person.

People say Michael Jackson was touched by god to dance etc. when, uh, no, it's because he used to practice 24 fucking 7 lmao. If you look at the best in any field or anybody you consider a genius or mind-blowing... all of them just practice A LOT more intensely and often.

Now, we do all have natural tendencies and limitations which may or may not be able to be bypassed or stretched to certain degrees but, our inclinations and our limits are what make us different from one another. And because of this, you could have two guys who practice X at the 'same' intensity for the same amount of time, and one guy could always be 'better' due to natural advantages.

Saying somebody has a god-given talent is sort of like seeing a flash and saying "that was a ghost", or looking at an animal, or the Earth and saying "this was done by a designer". They're sort of... non-answers, they're just assumptive cop-outs / avoidance of any true analysis.

Genius is the result of obsessive practice. And the way we get better at things is how natural-selection itself works. I realized not long ago that basically everything functions like natural selection. Think of the process of creating ANY art, or... anything really... we make changes, we see what works and throw out what doesn't work. That is natural-selection.

We are an upshot of natural-selection and so we think and function in a similar way. A genius is somebody who has mastered the art of natural-selection with his / her art or interest. They basically naturally-select and refine things very quickly, or, a lot, and retain good changes.

Talent is a reference, to a combination of natural ability and learned skill.

An interesting post, but you're extremely narrow minded in your view of 'genius'. Genius is not necessarily a reaction of practice, and by no means is it always a matter of intelligence (intelligence is measured in many ways, but you'll see what I mean in a minute). Moments of genius, something you have overlooked, can occur in ways which are unaffected by talent, obsession or even passion. They may not be specific to genius, but they require a calculating mind to be able to work out what is going on. Archimedes found it when he stepped into a bathtub and noticed that the level of the water rose. At this moment of genius, Archimedes suddenly understood that the volume of water displaced had to be equal to the volume of his submerged leg. This new discovery now meant that the volume of irregular objects could be precisely calculated. Archimedes wasn't devoted to this discovery, but it has its roots in genius. Note that this is unaffected by passion, or the obsession of practice. As far as intelligence is concerned it appears a basic connection to make which is why intelligence is so hard to make. If a footballer makes a tricky shot he may be called a genius, but he is not necessarily intelligent. There are so many factors surrounding 'genius' which make your argument basic and vague.

If Newton had never observed the falling apple, he may never have had the vision to develop his theory of universal gravitation.

If Hitler had died at Dunkirk he'd have been a genius: achieving in a matter of months what Kaiser Wilhelm has failed to do in 4 years. Yet Hitler was no genius, and Blitzkrieg ruined the German War Machine and ensured victory in WW2 was largely improbable. Declaring war on the USA was a fools move: hardly the mark of a previous genius.

So yes, intelligence + obsession + passion = genius can work on some levels, but at the same time can be undermined but further actions of the individual. Indeed, it's not a direct formula to achieve a genius. Really, genius is the ability of a person to take a situation, read it - perhaps theorise - and use it to create events with positive outcomes (positive to the individual, I should add, but potentially positive to the world as well).

There is no formula for genius. You're on a fools quest if you think you can contain it to words. What I have written above is a tiny mark on the surface of genius, and if I were to progress further it would become a confusion ramble.

Even your view of natural selection is flawed! We don't throw out what fails at all. History is on a constant revisionary cycle. One historian may argue Churchill was a great commander, another may focus on the fact he said to Stalin "History will remember us kindly because we will write it". The same is true with art: current movements would not have proved successful in the renaissance era, and there is nothing to say that renaissance art will not re-emerge again. Natural selection recycles what works, but failures get repeated and repeated. We don't learn from them, we attempt to deal with them.

As far as God-given goes you raise some good points, but I have always been good at drawing. As I practice I improve, but in terms of where I started you might notice a genius already. In fact, I improve as my motor skills improve (as I grow up). The practice teaches you ways of achieving things, but really my skills have been consistent. But then again I am no genius. MJ was a genius for what he achieved: if his dancing had achieved nothing his skills and obsession would come to nothing.

Genius, therefore, has to be recognised on some sort of scale. Which is why, as I say, you are wasting your time measuring it. If there are huge holes in your argument, and you're already a few paragraphs in, I think it wouldn't take a genius to work out that you need to sit down and really research your arguments, with tangible examples.

[Slim Fiasco]

^Every time an athlete thanks god, I feel like choking them. What about thanking yourself for working so hard, you bitch?

Or the fucking obvious flip side to that statement, which is basically: "God loves me more than my opponents. Roflcopter to maximum altitude!"

That too...

[momentsgolden]

^Every time an athlete thanks god, I feel like choking them. What about thanking yourself for working so hard, you bitch?

EINSTEIN fucking believed in God!! Ya'll need to step of the high horse and begin to respect people with a (pretty solid) view on the processes of success

[Trimss]

^Every time an athlete thanks god, I feel like choking them. What about thanking yourself for working so hard, you bitch?

EINSTEIN fucking believed in God!! Ya'll need to step of the high horse and begin to respect people with a (pretty solid) view on the processes of success

He was a well known agnostic.

[momentsgolden]

The practice teaches you ways of achieving things, but really my skills have been consistent. But then again I am no genius. MJ was a genius for what he achieved: if his dancing had achieved nothing his skills and obsession would come to nothing.

Your Words, are golden

[Eedee]

^Every time an athlete thanks god, I feel like choking them. What about thanking yourself for working so hard, you bitch?

EINSTEIN fucking believed in God!! Ya'll need to step of the high horse and begin to respect people with a (pretty solid) view on the processes of success

Einstein didn't believe in God. Get your fucking facts straight.

Even if he did, what does that have to do with your argument? It's a total non-sequitur.

[kiki]

The practice teaches you ways of achieving things, but really my skills have been consistent. But then again I am no genius. MJ was a genius for what he achieved: if his dancing had achieved nothing his skills and obsession would come to nothing.

Your Words, are golden

They're so golden I can't even read them.

[AbramIsaac]

Eedee, SF, momentsgolden:

You're moving away from the spirit of the discussion. The atheists are annoyed at people bringing up a fabricated God and giving him credit for things that are the work of man? That's fine, but that's a very small part of this discussion, so try not to derail things by focusing on a small, but controversial aspect of one poster's position.

Also, keep in mind that bringing up the nonexistence of a god is as annoying to those that believe as the opposite is for you. Regardless of how right you are, it's an unnecessary conversation unless the thread is dedicated to that topic. Not trying to be a dick, but let's try to keep the arguments and condescending remarks about the existence of god in the threads dedicated to that debate. Otherwise, things can turn ugly pretty quick.

Keep it clean as angel pussy, friends.

[Eedee]

^ Understood loud and clear.

And angel pussy? Yumm.

[infinite2hts]

I think the pre-2010 / Relapse era Eminem was the most obsessed one when it comes to writing and rhyme schemes. You can see the effort when you listen to the album. The number of songs he recorded during the relapse session proves his passion, hard work and most importantly his love for the art.

[momentsgolden]

[The practice teaches you ways of achieving things, but really my skills have been consistent But then again I am no genius. MJ was a genius for what he achieved: if his dancing had achieved nothing his skills and obsession would come to nothing.

Your Words, are golden

They're so golden I can't even read them.

haha, only noticed AFTER i had printed them.

Abramissac- understood.