The Quirky Habits of Certified Science Geniuses (bbc.com)

dryriver shares a report from the BBC: Celebrated inventor and physicist Nikola Tesla swore by toe exercises -- every night, he'd repeatedly "squish" his toes, 100 times for each foot, according to the author Marc J Seifer. While it's not entirely clear exactly what that exercise involved, Tesla claimed it helped to stimulate his brain cells. The most prolific mathematician of the 20th Century, Paul Erdos, preferred a different kind of stimulant: amphetamine, which he used to fuel 20-hour number benders. When a friend bet him $500 that he couldn't stop for a month, he won but complained "You've set mathematics back a month." Newton, meanwhile, bragged about the benefits of celibacy. When he died in 1727, he had transformed our understanding of the natural world forever and left behind 10 million words of notes; he was also, by all accounts, still a virgin (Tesla was also celibate, though he later claimed he fell in love with a pigeon). It's common knowledge that sleep is good for your brain -- and Einstein took this advice more seriously than most. He reportedly slept for at least 10 hours per day -- nearly one and a half times as much as the average American today (6.8 hours). But can you really slumber your way to a sharper mind? Many of the world's most brilliant scientific minds were also fantastically weird. From Pythagoras' outright ban on beans to Benjamin Franklin's naked "air baths," the path to greatness is paved with some truly peculiar habits.

Comments

You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Cryacin]

But it helps!

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Wycliffe]

I remember taking a left brain / right brain test in high school and the teacher saying that the only people who scored equal on both sides tended to be either genius or mentally retarded. Whether it is autism, schizophrenia, creativity, or something else, if you want to "think outside the box" then being on the fringe is to your advantage. It doesn't surprise me that great thinkers were far outside the box. The trick is being far outside the box without being so far out that you're unstable. Many great thinkers, artists, etc.. were fairly unstable but still managed to hold it together well enough to give us some novel ideas.

On a somewhat related note, I have a personal theory that the spike in autism is being caused by smart people having children. If intelligence is "balancing on the brink of insanity", then two people on the brink who reproduce sometimes causes their offspring to be over the edge.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[TheCastro1689]

Your personal theory is a published study. Mostly aspergers, but a prof looked into it and his theory is that since most people are marrying later, they are also marrying people in their fields. So instead of marrying a random girl from town, you're marrying someone that could also be intelligent and have low level autism. BUT there are studies that show autism stems from poor nutrition and especially LOW IRON. The more likely culprit is bad nutrient levels, especially since people are older and their body needs more work to maintain.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[king neckbeard]

Since the available evidence seems to suggest that autism is congenital, you are likely getting cause and effect backwards. Autistics often have restricted diets, which can, in turn, lead to nutritional deficiencies.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[gtall]

I thought autism was caused by blond actresses who saw something on TV and then convinced like-minded dolts to stop vaccinating their sproggs.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[MangoCats]

You do have to be an outlier to get noticed. If you go around doing what everybody else does, you'll blend in to the background, and you also won't be doing anything terribly novel or intriguing.

Makes sense that discovery comes from people who are different.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[conquistadorst]

I remember taking a left brain / right brain test in high school and the teacher saying that the only people who scored equal on both sides tended to be either genius or mentally retarded. Whether it is autism, schizophrenia, creativity, or something else, if you want to "think outside the box" then being on the fringe is to your advantage. It doesn't surprise me that great thinkers were far outside the box. The trick is being far outside the box without being so far out that you're unstable. Many great thinkers, artists, etc.. were fairly unstable but still managed to hold it together well enough to give us some novel ideas.

On a somewhat related note, I have a personal theory that the spike in autism is being caused by smart people having children. If intelligence is "balancing on the brink of insanity", then two people on the brink who reproduce sometimes causes their offspring to be over the edge.

I'd even take it a step further. It's their obsessiveness about that one thing. There are many people in this world that are dedicated to their work. They work hard, work all nighters, get stressed, study, etc... but there are very, very, very few people in this world so obsessed with a *SINGLE* topic that almost literally consumes them, all day, every day, for years and years. To the point they're not just neglecting themselves, they often consider their bodies a physical nuisance. They also shun everything else that doesn't seem important, like spending social time with others, what other people think, eating, cleaning, other mundane tasks. If you could free your mind of those things and spend every waking second on a single topic, then it should be no surprise one would argue that you already have clinical issues. Most of us are not wired to do that, we'd probably psychologically break down instead of thriving like these guys.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Wycliffe]

Your personal theory is a published study. Mostly aspergers, but a prof looked into it and his theory is that since most people are marrying later, they are also marrying people in their fields. So instead of marrying a random girl from town, you're marrying someone that could also be intelligent and have low level autism.

Do you have a link to that study? I've seen from personal experience that most people I know with autistic kids tend to be highly intelligence and it makes sense that it could be some kind of "inbreeding" type characteristic especially considering that it's spiking in places like Silicon Valley but I have yet to see anything but conjecture on the topic.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a son with a Mexican woman who only has a 4th grade education in Mexico and in her middle 30's. Her parents were/are dirt poor in Mexico and there wasn't money for education. I am some what intelligent( haven't won any Darwin awards) and just into my 50's .

My son is now 6 and just starting to speak. He was diagnosed Autistic as early as a year old. He has been going to speech therapy since he was 4. I keep telling the doctors that there is nothing wrong with him, that he doesn't feel like speaking. He understands spoken words( both English and Spanish) and will do what you ask of him. He will occasionally just grunt or say the occasional "Yes".

I myself didn't start speaking till I was at least 5 years old. I had an older sister that would speak for me when ever I would point at something.

I have an older daughter with a woman that I married in my very early 20's. Less than after marriage, she ran off with my best friend from high school and divorced me. She then cut off all contact with me.

My daughter reconnected with me in her early teens despite her mother trying to keep her from contacting me. Her mother eventually told me that she also didn't speak till she was 5 or so, blaming me because I had told her stories that I didn't feel like speaking when I was little.

My older daughter now in her early 30's has a daughter and a son. My grand daughter started speaking before she was 2 years old and never shut up. But, my grand son wasn't speaking till 5 years old either. I, my daughter and grand son have grown out of it. My grand son is now 7 years old.

My 6 year old son is just now starting to grow out of it.

I firmly believe that autism is inherited. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong, we don't feel like talking with people. I still feel that way today.

Albert Einstein didn't speak till he was more than 5 years old either. There was nothing wrong with him.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their obsessiveness about that one thing. There are many people in this world that are dedicated to their work. They work hard, work all nighters, get stressed, study, etc... but there are very, very, very few people in this world so obsessed with a *SINGLE* topic that almost literally consumes them, all day, every day, for years and years. To the point they're not just neglecting themselves, they often consider their bodies a physical nuisance. They also shun everything else that doesn't seem important, like spending social time with others, what other people think, eating, cleaning, other mundane tasks. If you could free your mind of those things and spend every waking second on a single topic, then it should be no surprise one would argue that you already have clinical issues. Most of us are not wired to do that, we'd probably psychologically break down instead of thriving like these guys.

It is of course this and this mainly. The article sets a record for getting things wrong. For example:
According to the latest review of the evidence, around 40% of what distinguishes the brainiacs from the blockheads in adulthood is environmental. No link, and no doubt a percentage contradicted by every other study before and after.

Then there is:
Many of the most radical breakthroughs in human history, including the periodic table, the structure of DNA and Einsteinâ(TM)s theory of special relativity, have supposedly occurred while their discoverer was unconscious. With again no links, and obvious lunacy/invention present. Einstein most certainly did NOT come up with SR "while unconscious". He used intuition instead. As to the periodic table, since this was conceived in stages by numerous people, this author's "point" is horse exhaust. Finally, DNA was conceived once again by intuition, and there has never been mention of sleep being important, but instead simply inevitable. You know, it comes at the end of the day.

As to the zigzag stuff, correlation/causation etc. Maybe the genius types have more zigzags, maybe the zigzags lead to more genius thoughts. It is a dark matter "solution".

Intriguingly, those who have more spindle events tend to have greater âfluid intelligenceâ(TM) â" the ability to solve new problems, use logic in new situations, and identify patterns â" the kind Einstein had in spades.

Intriguingly, the author thinks they can rename intuition as "fluid intelligence".

..."This ties in nicely with Einsteinâ(TM)s disdain for formal education and advice to "never memorise anything which you can look up"...No, if anything their "fluid intelligence" would make them want to memorise all kinds of stuff. That's how people game IQ tests, after all.

"walking outside is even better...but why?" Moron. Tell you what, how about we incarcerate you in solitary for, oh I don't know, let's say a month. Then we let you out and bring our clipboards along on your first walk outside.

It was impossible to read further...

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Ol Olsoc]

You do have to be an outlier to get noticed. If you go around doing what everybody else does, you'll blend in to the background, and you also won't be doing anything terribly novel or intriguing.

Makes sense that discovery comes from people who are different.

Pretty much agree about the differentness getting people noticed. But it's the differentness, not the genius. The entire article sounds like some racist screed about how Dark Skinned People from Africa are stronger but dumb, or the sexist bullshit that wimminfolk can't do serious work because they go crazy every month.

Sorry everyone, but genius comes in all shapes and forms. And some of them live in McMansions in the suburbs, and enjoy football games. Just like "normal people".

And some remarkably obtuse people do eccentric things. Or sleep ten hours a day. Or four. Or not.

And some remarkably average people are quirky as all hell.

Or not.

As well, where is the certification agency that hands out genius certification? I need to talk to them.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[TWX]

No, that's what causes pandemics.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[TWX]

Albert Einstein didn't speak till he was more than 5 years old either. There was nothing wrong with him.

Sure there was. He married his first-cousin. Hell, he left his wife for his first-cousin.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

The studies show a correlation between nutrient deficits prior to birth and autism later in life.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[TheCastro1689]

I've tried finding it again, this was a couple years back, and it's been crushed under google by all the random BS articles about autism and aspergers. I really should have saved it somewhere, pisses me off.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[TheCastro1689]

There's also evidence that kids in bilingual homes speak later as well. Drs freak out and like to make everything extreme when it could be late development and your kid will turn out completely normal/average. There's nothing they can do either, so the only reason to get in early is for that sweet sweet gov disability money. Hoping your kid turns out ok though!

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[angel'o'sphere]

And what is wrong with that?

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Angst Badger]

The problem with this argument is that some of the geniuses under discussion were polymath generalists, not specialists in one thing. And even with the specialists, people like Tesla and Erdos covered an enormous range of topics within their specialization. The common factor with most of them is an enormous amount of energy bordering on mania, coupled with enough intelligence to make productive use of it instead of repeatedly rearranging the dishes in the kitchen at 3am.

I suspect that our knowing about their weird habits is just a side-effect of self-confidence in some (Newton, Franklin), and an utter disregard for social convention (Tesla, Erdos) in others. Lots of people have weird habits -- and I'm looking at YOU, fellow Slashdot users -- but prefer to be discreet about them.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Dripdry]

You're sort of saying they're monks but in a different way than most would consider?

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, no. "proper use of fashion, makeup etc." is not even remotely on a par with solving problems in algebraic topology. Supermodels are not as smart as rocket scientists, it's neither a matter of choice of what to learn nor "all subjective".

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. As a supermodel I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

One note... most aspies go through life obsessed with special interests, but those special interests don't *necessarily* remain static for life... or even for a long time. It's more like they have a constellation of interests that evolve over time, spawn obsessive sub-interests of their own, and occasionally get tossed aside for days, weeks, or months at a time when some OTHER thing temporarily becomes their "obsession of the week".

In computer terms, an aspie is kind of like an overclocked, insanely-fast (but single-core) cpu with a million hardwired registers & petabytes of slow hard drive space for long-term storage & swap space, but almost no normal system ram, and badly-broken context switching that causes frequent crashes & reboots due to stack corruption. So, they can do brilliant work with tasks that can fit entirely into the small amount of ram & many registers, and once something is stored & indexed they'll remember it forever... BUT... switching tasks (and change not driven by THEM) is painful & slow, and tasks that *require* significant non-compartmentalized collaboration will send them completely off the rails.

Put more generally, aspies have poor short-term memory & extreme problems with multitasking & collaboration, but thrive when allowed to "do their own thing" & spared from having to deal with most of life's grunt work.

Put another way, the human mind is NOT "limitless". It's more like a powerful FPGA that can be configured in ~16 ways, all of which trade some things for others. You can have lots of ram, a fast (but small) ssd, and a slow many-core cpu to get an empathetic "people person" at one extreme, or you can make other trade-offs to get the other 15 configurations, but you can't literally max out EVERY spec without running out of cells or self-destructing due to metaphorical heat, power, etc.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[sexconker]

Albert Einstein didn't speak till he was more than 5 years old either. There was nothing wrong with him.

Sure there was. He married his first-cousin. Hell, he left his wife for his first-cousin.

So what? Even fucking a direct sibling and producing offspring isn't bad unless you've already got bad genes.
You're just slowing your genetic drift, which is often desired.

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute post!

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is a genius, they just haven't realized it yet.

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[minstrelmike]

Parents freak out, not doctors. Get your cause-effect right. Doctors feel an obligation to tell you every possble thing that could go wrong, especially focusing on the worst outcomes. That's enough to freak you out.

And even if there is nothing wrong, they'll show you where your child is on develpmetn charts and all the parents see is where their child is NOT A-plus.

Too short--growth hormones. Too fat, baby exercises. Too thin, dump the exercises. Parents are the problem, not doctors,

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[SandWyrm]

I've also seen some studies that show a correlation between low vitamin D levels during pregnancy, and autistic births.

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a very similar feature article years ago, it was from Wired mag.

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Saving the vast amount of energy and time that normal people use on personal relations. Depends whats more important to ya. If you want to be happy, have the relationships, cos even if they go down in flames you got something sweet to look back on.

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well put

Re:You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been no "spike in Autism". What there has been is an expansion of the extremely narrow definition used by Kanner back in the '30s and '40s, and a very large increase in the number of professionals trained to diagnosis it over the years - resulting in a greater percentage of the population being evaluated, which of course leads to a larger number of diagnosed cases. In recent years the reported figures have leveled off at approximately 1.5% (the famous "1 in 68")

Autism is not insanity. It is a neurological condition, not psychiatric. While there are presumably some Autistics with severe psychiatric issues (schizophrenia, psychopathy, etc. - that are colloquially referred to as insanity), the percentage should not be expected to be any different than is seen in the general population.

Re: You don't have to crazy to be a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't have to know what survivor bias is to write slashdot articles ....

I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[Opportunist]

But remember kids, you cannot omit that genius part. Without, carrying a blanket around and calling it your waifu only makes you a weirdo.

Re:I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[JaredOfEuropa]

That also works for rich or otherwise successful people. The word for nutty rich or super-smart folks is "eccentric" I suspect that a great many ordinary people have pretty weird quirks and habits too; the difference is that we never hear about them.

Re:I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this proves it, I really am a genius!

Re:I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you also need the matching pillow

Re:I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

Make that "selfmade rich people".
Or perhaps more general; "exceptionally succesful people are accepted to be exceptional in other ways".
Somebody who merely inherits wealth or success is generally more frowned upon when behaving out of the norm.

Re:I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[war4peace]

We're all eccentric, only nobody cares about investigating our eccentricities.

Re:I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[XxtraLarGe]

But remember kids, you cannot omit that genius part. Without, carrying a blanket around and calling it your waifu only makes you a weirdo.

Everybody is somebody's weirdo.

Re:I'm not odd, I'm a genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

If a rich person spends their time acting weird they usually either have the sort of jobs where that is tolerated and/or enough saved that a deficit of work is not a complete disaster. If an average Joe lets it all hang out then unless they luck out with very supportative friends and family they'll usually lose their job, savings, family and home in pretty short order, which is a good incentive to "fake normal".

I sure know that I would act a lot more natural (read weird and some might say anti-social) if it wasn't for the whole fear of loss thing.

The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[Oxygen99]

I think it's a bit of stretch to call Newton's proclivities a 'quirky habit'.

Re:The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[MangoCats]

Newton's fascination with mercury may have helped his insights - for a short time.

Re:The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure slashdot readership agrees with you... but that doesn't make it any strange to the rest of the world who isn't in engaged in celibacy self imposed or otherwise.

Re:The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[king neckbeard]

That's only weird by modern standards. For his time, searching for the philosopher's stone was like remembering sports statistics.

Re:The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[avandesande]

Also B. Franklin's sunbathing. Was that so unusual?

Re:The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[Deadstick]

Not "sunbathing", exactly: he seems to have done it indoors, sitting in front of an open window to get fresh air.

Going nekkid at home probably wasn't all that unusual, given that clothing was a significant expense...and Victorianism was still in the future.

Re:The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, summers in Philadelphia are pretty damn hot, and his air-conditioning invention wasn't all that great.

easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sleep a lot, be a virgin, take drugs. Got it.

Re:easy

[rmdingler]

There must be at least one more step.

Re:easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Post on Slashdot.

Re:easy

[TheCastro1689]

Don't be ugly?

Re:easy

[rmdingler]

Sure, but doesn't ugly decrease the level of difficulty of at least one of the other prerequisites?

Re: easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Most "ugly" geniuses are just one makeover away from being hot, because they can't independently figure out what society REGARDS as "beauty". Give a nerd a makeover, get him subsequently laid with minimal effort despite having limited social skills so he can see the direct payoff that comes from "being hot", and his NEXT obsession will probably be extreme fitness, plastic surgery, and fashion (to the nearly-complete exclusion of everything he formerly cared about... ultimately, going into self-destruct when age ravages those good looks & takes away their former benefits).

Re: easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I've seen this a few times, particularly with the legal and tech fields. You always find a few crossfit/toughmudder/ColaWarrior/weightlifting nut whose also really obsessive and smart, usually seems somewhere on the spectrum, etc...

Favism

[dargaud]

Pythagoras ban's on fava beans can be traced back to his having favism.

Re:Favism

[Applehu Akbar]

Pythagoras ban's on fava beans can be traced back to his having favism.

Farting in rich primary colors, shocking your fellow French artists.

Re:Favism

[dargaud]

Hmmm, isn't that Fauvism ?

Re:Favism

[Anonymous Coward]

Pythagoras ban's on fava beans can be traced back to his having favism.

Farting in rich primary colors, shocking your fellow French artists.

This is a good place for this then: https://www.xkcd.com/1012/

Old hat

[king neckbeard]

In other words, a lot of geniuses were probably autistic or had other conditions we generally consider to be 'mental illness.' Individuals with exceptionally high intelligence don't tend to integrate fully into society, and society's reaction is largely to consider them broken. As a great philosopher once said, "Only shooting stars break the mold."

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off. No such thing as "autism". You're brainwashed and incredibly dumb.

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

...a lot of geniuses were probably autistic or had other conditions we generally consider to be 'mental illness'.

That's one hypothesis - you can't dig up the dead and test them and looking back at their history and making a diagnosis is not valid at all.

Mental health evaluations for functioning people is "more of an art than science" as my psychiatrist friend says. (I refrain from saying that it's on the verge of quackery. I like my friends.) Someone who's in the corner pulling their hair out and telling open air to "shut up!" is obviously disturbed but someone who has trouble paying attention or doesn't like interacting with people and making eye contact?

We have this disease model for mental health that I think causes more harm than good. And if you look at what the evolutionary psychologists say about it, some things really aren't a disease but our innate responses to our social environment. Depression has been hypothesized that it's just a way we evolved to let our group know that we're hurting inside and we need some care.

Rage is the same. I mean there are folks out there who are just dense or pushy or both who don't get "no" until you get in their face screaming.

There's a research psychiatrist (who I cannot remember now) who has been researching recovery. He is finding the best thing for a survivor for trauma is finding someone who is non-judgemental even tempered person and just hanging with them does wonders. Sending them to cognitive behavior therapy isn't cutting it for the long term. The same goes for folks with anxiety issues. Our current talk therapy treatments don't work on most.

There is so much about our psyches that isn't known that to make judgements about anyone's condition or functioning will just be plain wrong. And I think our current mental health profession are going to be viewed as quackery in the not so distant future as more is learned.

Re:Old hat

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

As a great philosopher once said, "Only shooting stars break the mold."

Stop saying stuff like that. Some second amendment nut case might go postal on some movie stars.

Re: Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

My main psychiatrist at tavistock child psychiatry centre would have agreed with you about more art than science..
He reckoned as long as he could help people feel better and survive in the real world,he didn't care what his job was called..
Pity it took me 8+ years of "treatment" by others until I met him,he was the only one who helped at all..
It was pretty simple,my mother loathed me absconded missed my dad,hardly a need for a decade of screwing with my head..

Re:Old hat

[EzInKy]

There's a research psychiatrist (who I cannot remember now)

Shouldn't you first address your memory deficit before you offer advice to others?

Re:Old hat

[king neckbeard]

Yeah, it can't be conclusively confirmed or denied, which is why I used ambiguous terms like "many" and "probably." But you can make a hypothesis about it, and getting society to see value outside of a neurological monoculture is a worthwhile endeavor.

Re:Old hat

[king neckbeard]

You clearly aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Re:Old hat

[TheCastro1689]

People have dumb names, no need to remember them all.

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. We dig up people all the time. However, it's easy to say that Napoleon's hair was full of arsenic; there's no current post-mortem test that can tell us what was wrong with Vincent van Gogh.

The problem with the field of psychology/psychiatry is that we're still not much more advanced than Ancient Greece in either mental process analysis or brain bio-chemistry. Up until perhaps 1990, a lot of chemical and mechanical treatments were more like retro-phrenology than actually attacking the roots of the problem. People come up with a new hammer and run around seeing everyone's afflictions as a nail. Then someone comes up with a new kind of hammer and sees new kinds of nails. One-size-fits-all is a common approach in the field.

We're getting there. Schizophrenia was still considered as basically incurable right up until the declining days of the previous century. Now there are effective medications that help many (though not all) with schizophrenia. There's a long way to go.

And that's just for mental illness. There is, after all, a fine line between genius and insanity as the old saying goes. Making sense out of genius would be another matter entirely.

Re:Old hat

[king neckbeard]

Not just dumb names. Arbitrary names, based on grandparents, popular culture, ancestral professions, and the so on. You might be able to get some useful information out of someone's name, but overall, it's basically just a random string of letters.

Re:Old hat

[burningcpu]

My IQ was recently estimated to be very high, and I can attest. Growing up, I was considered 'learning disabled,' and mostly sidelined intellectually - my parents figured I'd be a police officer or something else that doesn't require much education so they didn't push.

I am autistic and have ADHD. Before I started taking ADHD medication (when diagnosed at 33 for autism and ADHD, a few months ago), OCD was life. But I handled the OCD in a different way -- rather than looping about a single topic, I was able to force myself around related issues in an OCD like cycle. This allowed some relief from the anxiety as I wasn't 'seeing' the same thoughts, over and over. And often, thoughts came to me so quickly that while I knew they were genesis of me, they felt to have come from someone else. I thought I might have been going crazy.

Reading reference materials allowed me to push along that cycle, and the dullness soothed me -- finally mental freedom from other people's emotions. So I'd read books and books of reference materials, on just about anything. And because my mind records images and builds associations via images, I can re-access those references under controlled conditions.

'Normal' people don't really have a chance to compete with me, scientifically. I see my thoughts visually. I can access thousands of images and overlay these upon my sight, and I do so while conducting research. I blend today's technology and my autistic 'minority report' type brain interface to create a research platform that is just....impressive.

But I don't think of these things necessary as achievements for myself...I was born this way and this is just the way I handle my stress. I feel for others that I work with that don't have these advantages. However, I'm often looked at with suspicion, as I can solve problems that have been long standing for years, within a few minutes of hearing of them. It's freaky to others. But again, I don't feel anything special from it. It's just how I've developed over time, and really just more a symptom of me trying to deal with anxiety. The problem is, that further drives humanity away from me -- seeing me as something 'other.'

I state this here while I haven't spoken of this elsewhere because some slashdotters may feel me.

Re:Old hat

[110010001000]

Trust me. We all understand you. Everyone on Slashdot has a high IQ, Aspbergers, Autism, you name it. 'Normal' people don't stand a chance! Give me a break...

Re:Old hat

[Ol Olsoc]

There's a research psychiatrist (who I cannot remember now) who has been researching recovery. He is finding the best thing for a survivor for trauma is finding someone who is non-judgemental even tempered person and just hanging with them does wonders.

That's really interesting.

I wonder if that was gender based. I've read and listened to some work that while women are helped by talk, that men are best helped by something similar to what you note, hanging with some other guys, doing some stuff, maybe performing some sort of shared labor. It sounds odd, but I know that many men after some loss or trauma, will throw themselves into their work. The women in their lives often accuse them of not facing their grief, but it could possibly just be a mental difference between the two sexes.

Re:Old hat

[burningcpu]

Haha. Yes, we do tend to congregate in one place. Unfortunately, here you are as well.

Re:Old hat

[110010001000]

Yes we are all geniuses here with special brains. Normal people don't understand us.

Re:Old hat

[king neckbeard]

It's almost as if this was a news site for nerds or something...

Re:Old hat

[quantaman]

In other words, a lot of geniuses were probably autistic or had other conditions we generally consider to be 'mental illness.'

I'm sure a few were somewhere on the spectrum but I don't see any reason to think they had what we'd consider mental illnesses.

Individuals with exceptionally high intelligence don't tend to integrate fully into society, and society's reaction is largely to consider them broken. As a great philosopher once said, "Only shooting stars break the mold."

I think that's close, but misses the mark. Most of us have oddities and quirks, but we tend to suppress them because we want friends and jobs. A crazy hat is fine up until you realize the girl you like doesn't dig it.

But when you're successful enough everybody already wants to be your friend so there's no need to normalize, in fact those weird little habits just become part of your trademark.

Celebrities are a good example of this, in fact a great example is Donald Trump. He's obviously not a genius, but he has a lot of odd characteristics that would be big trouble for a person with less wealth and celebrity. Look at older videos from when he was starting out, he was a relatively ordinary person. I think most of his persona comes from his decades of outrageous wealth and celebrity leaving him with no motivation to keep his "quirks" in check.

Re:Old hat

[110010001000]

And nerds are all geniuses with special brains. That explains it!

Re:Old hat

[king neckbeard]

I'm sure a few were somewhere on the spectrum but I don't see any reason to think they had what we'd consider mental illnesses.

Well, autism itself is considered a mental illness by the DSM, and the incidence of things like schizophrenia and dyslexia is significantly higher in certain fields.

I think that's close, but misses the mark. Most of us have oddities and quirks, but we tend to suppress them because we want friends and jobs. A crazy hat is fine up until you realize the girl you like doesn't dig it.

And there's a fair bit of evidence that suppressing them is easier if you are less intelligent. Not dumb, just within one or two standard deviations of average. Misophonia, for example, correlates with high intelligence. Smart people don't have better hearing, but they may be processing more information or filtering less. This applies even to smart people who aren't successful, although success can certainly make it easier to not integrate.

There's also evidence that society dumbs us down in a lot of ways, particularly creative thinking. Children do far better at creative thinking tests than most adults. because they are trained through school to fit into the kind of molds we set for industrial labor. Those unable to conform could be argued to be somewhat shielded from that kind of "brain damage." Granted, this is not directly equivalent to higher innate intelligence, but may end up with the same developmental results.

Celebrity and power are a bit of a different animal, although there may be some overlap. They are conditioned in a different manner than other people, and thus certain odd behaviors are reinforced, or at least not discouraged, as they would be in a more mundane setting. But this would support part of my argument, as a lot of Trump's success comes from being able to think outside of the DC bubble mindset. He's certainly not intelligent, but when he's not being handled, he occasionally spurts out the obvious things that are unthinkable to normal politicians and journalists, such as money buying policy.

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Bro, you're making fun of someone who is autistic. I hope that feels good.

Re:Old hat

[king neckbeard]

No, but the bell curve for nerds is probably shifted a bit. Nobody here has said 'all' except you and your whiny strawman. I'm saying 'statistically significant,' something that could be quickly supported by automated tests of writing levels of comment sections from various sites. The average Slashdot comment is stupid, but the average Youtube or Facebook comment is far below that.

Re:Old hat

[Pascoea]

I'm sorry, I can't help myself on this one, but how bad does having the user ID 1234256 mess with your OCD? (And I REALLY apologize if you never noticed it up until now)

Re:Old hat

[Dripdry]

AC just proved parent's point. Great job, kid, that was one in a million!

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely a registered Democrat. Here in America, for the last decade or so, they seem to be the ones going crazy and shooting lots of people.

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop saying that autism makes people magic.

Re:Old hat

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

With no intellectual equals among the adult population, they are feral humans who grew up among children.

There have been perhaps a few thousands of true humans, and everybody else is just a trainable animal.

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we are all geniuses here with special brains. Normal people don't understand us.

Well, yeah your username is binary. Normal people certainly don't understand and certainly think of you as a sort of "special".

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it's easy to say that Napoleon's hair was full of arsenic

I don't know, may he was poisoned?

There is, after all, a fine line between genius and insanity as the old saying goes.

There's a bottomless chasm between genius and insanity. There's a hell of difference between some weird lisp hacker and my cousin that thinks he's 'fixing windows' by poking random bytes into word files with a hex editor.

The problem is with society: since the early age, we're trained to worship some ideal 'common man', and just just because both a quirky genius and a complete idiot are supposed to appear 'weird' to that 'common-sense' strawman, we draw the conclusion that they should be somehow related.

You don't tell apart Ramanujan and some common quack by the 'impression' they would make on a 'typical mathematician', but by how easy is to disprove and demolish their claims.

It's sad enough that silly & disgusting prejudices are a fact of life (even in circles pretending to be skeptical and rational), there's no need to make them into something metaphysical.

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

In early primary school I was in the slow learner's class. I just didn't associate teachers talking and drawing stuff with something I should pay attention to rather than, say, the shape of plant leaves, the pattern in the Lino on the floor, or sorting my pencils.

In late primary school my OCD focus shifted to schoolwork and my marks went through the roof. I don't think I suddenly got smarter: I just added school "stuff" (reading/writing/sums) to my collection of obsessions, at that time being patterns, stepping on each surface an even number of times starting with my left foot, and reading the ingredients list on everything.

Now I have a PhD and work in research, which gives me a chance to exercise my obsessive tendencies and love of detail, at least when I'm not doing grant proposals.

Re: Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if the ED article is still up but as we all know you catch if from the internet. It was previously caught it by going to the doctors but it mutated when everyone gets it by going online.

im just jelly that im not further along on the spectrum so I can just tune out humanity. take it with a grain of salt.

Re:Old hat

[quantaman]

I'm sure a few were somewhere on the spectrum but I don't see any reason to think they had what we'd consider mental illnesses.

Well, autism itself is considered a mental illness by the DSM, and the incidence of things like schizophrenia and dyslexia is significantly higher in certain fields.

But I don't think they're autistic, maybe some had aspergers, but if they were average intelligence I suspect none would be considered mentally ill.

I think that's close, but misses the mark. Most of us have oddities and quirks, but we tend to suppress them because we want friends and jobs. A crazy hat is fine up until you realize the girl you like doesn't dig it.

And there's a fair bit of evidence that suppressing them is easier if you are less intelligent. Not dumb, just within one or two standard deviations of average. Misophonia, for example, correlates with high intelligence. Smart people don't have better hearing, but they may be processing more information or filtering less. This applies even to smart people who aren't successful, although success can certainly make it easier to not integrate.

There's also evidence that society dumbs us down in a lot of ways, particularly creative thinking. Children do far better at creative thinking tests than most adults. because they are trained through school to fit into the kind of molds we set for industrial labor. Those unable to conform could be argued to be somewhat shielded from that kind of "brain damage." Granted, this is not directly equivalent to higher innate intelligence, but may end up with the same developmental results.

Alright, I suspect there is a positive correlation between genius + oddity and scientific breakthroughs. Ie, genius and oddity could be completely uncorrelated, but if you happen to be a genius and odd you end up exploring novel areas due to your oddity, and advancing them because of your genius.

Celebrity and power are a bit of a different animal, although there may be some overlap. They are conditioned in a different manner than other people, and thus certain odd behaviors are reinforced, or at least not discouraged, as they would be in a more mundane setting. But this would support part of my argument, as a lot of Trump's success comes from being able to think outside of the DC bubble mindset. He's certainly not intelligent, but when he's not being handled, he occasionally spurts out the obvious things that are unthinkable to normal politicians and journalists, such as money buying policy.

Though money buying policy isn't unthinkable, hell, that was half the uproar over Citizens United. Though most politicians are reluctant to talk about the influence of big donors because that's where they get their campaign funding. Trump only started talking about money buying policy when he couldn't get big donors, and he stopped when they came through.

Trump's talents are a little different, first his experience is showbiz not politics, a typical politician makes fuzzy uninspiring promises because they know how hard it is to get things done, Trump promises the moon because that's what gets the biggest payoff. He also has a tendency to say things that seem obvious, but no one says them because experts realize they're bad ideas.

Re:Old hat

[burningcpu]

Hahahaha, you called it, Pascoea! I almost feel apologetic after posting, given that others have to look at the abomination.

But I have trouble seeing numbers buried deep like that, and instead just assume that the thing is sequential. Which is weird, because 'I' know that it isn't. But it feels more comfortable seeing it as sequential, so that's how I see it.

This is why I don't trust myself with numbers, without assistance from technology. I've done some stupid shit that way....

Re:Old hat

[minstrelmike]

Progress is considered a mental illness by true conservatives who don't want technology or society or facts to change, even as they take full advantage of anything new.

In Analog science fiction mag, it is commonly stated that first man to control fire was probably burned at the stake by priests.

If you--the inventor--don't think things are good enough right now, then that's perceived as a slam against the folks ostensibly "in charge."

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me. We all understand you. Everyone on Slashdot has a high IQ, Aspbergers, Autism, you name it. 'Normal' people don't stand a chance! Give me a break...

Dang. I know I'm (currently) posting as an AC, and I hate to break it to you, but I'm "normal". I'm definitely a nerd and as a s/w guy can generally code 10x some folks & ~1x (+/- 0.1) the super smarts I've encountered. Otherwise, I'm completely unremarkable.

So, life is a spectrum. Who knew?

The only difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference between brilliance and insanity is success.

Re:The only difference...

[gweihir]

Not at all. Most insanity is destructive. These people are/were not insane at all. They just did not give a damn what others think. The average human being, however, is so focused on what others think that they can regularly not even recognize clear nonsense. The critical characteristic needed for making mental breakthroughs is not high intelligence. That one, a lot of people have. It is the ability to use it independently and most people (even most highly intelligent ones) fail at that completely. Intelligence does not help if you do not use it.

Re:The only difference...

[mesterha]

I read a Scientific America special issue that covered this topic. Here's a review of the main topics. http://www.creatifik.com/fivep...

Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[TimothyHollins]

I see two distinct, yet likely, possibilities.

1. They were all autistic. Autists don't like change and tend to develop rituals and patterns, such as hammering your feet before bedtime or closing/opening the door 9 times before going through. Autists are sometimes also very sharp (though faaar from all of them) when they manage to focus their behavioral patterns on logical problems.

2. This is visibility bias. We are all quirky in some way, but not all of us invented relativity theory. I have a friend that sleeps 11+ hours a day, but she's not a genius, so no-one cares. I had a friend that only ate cereal, but she wasn't a genius so no-one cared. Looking back, most of my friends have had some quirk or other, and I'm guessing that if I spent some time digging I'd find that everyone has at least one. So, these geniuses aren't special on the quirk side, they are simply the ones we notice because they're 'famous'. I bet you all know of some unique quirk belonging to your favorite actor/actress, not because they're quirky, but because they're covered by the press 24/7 in detail.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to sleep 10+ hours to be a genius. Take a look at my cousin. He sleeps 16 hours a day and don't know shit!

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the third possibility is that they were austistic AND the only reason anyone cares about their weirdness is they managed to get famous for accomplishing things, probably because they were lucky enough to be austistic before the internet. Born tkday, many of them would have withered away on some chan server where being a virgin who sleeps a lot wouldn't be uncommon.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[GrumpySteen]

Autism has nothing to do with celibacy, using meth, running around naked outside, sleeping 10 hours a night and not eating beans because nobody understands what glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is, so your first possibility is distinctly unlikely.

Your second possibility, on the other hand, is absolutely on point.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[MangoCats]

Just because they are distinct does not mean they are not both true.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[MangoCats]

Autism has nothing to do with celibacy, using meth, running around naked outside, sleeping 10 hours a night and not eating beans because nobody understands what glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is

Maybe not directly, but Autism is strongly correlated with most of those things... except maybe the meth.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[Ol Olsoc]

Autism has nothing to do with celibacy, using meth, running around naked outside, sleeping 10 hours a night and not eating beans because nobody understands what glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is

Maybe not directly, but Autism is strongly correlated with most of those things... except maybe the meth.

Have we reached the point where 100 percent of us are autistic yet?

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[GrumpySteen]

Maybe not directly, but Autism is strongly correlated with most of those things... except maybe the meth.

Citation needed. I challenge you to find a single study showing that any of those things correlates with autism. Especially the sleeping 10 hours one, because autism actually fucks up your ability to sleep.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[king neckbeard]

Not bothering to pull up a study, especially since those aren't things likely to be directly addressed, as they are very unacademic, but I will address them point by point:

Celibacy: Difficulty forming close knit bonds, hyper and hyposensitivity, and difficulty acting in socially appropriate manners are all impediments to having sex. Hyperfocus on special interests often lead to failures in self-care, which is generally unattractive, and means that more immediate needs than sex are ignored.
Meth: High rates of comorbidity of autism with ADHD, which is often treated with amphetamines.
Running around naked outside: Why is that not normal behavior? Because of the social rules involved, which is something autistics are more likely to ignore.
Sleeping for 10 hours: Atypical, for sure, but forcing yourself to sleep for 10 hours would not be, and it's possible that Einstein was exerting himself to the extent that he didn't have trouble sleeping. The brain is power hungry, and Einstein used his brain a bit.
Not eating beans: Autistics are well documented as having limited diets or avoiding certain foods.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: I don't actually have any proof, so imma make some shit up.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[king neckbeard]

Except that every single claim I made is well documented. There just aren't studies on autistics not getting laid because 1) it's not something easy to study directly and 2) it has limited academic value.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[Anonymous Coward]

The not eating beans is more than just avoiding certain foods. There's a high comorbidity of Autism with IBD/IBS. Beans as a high-fibre food that also causes gas can be very painful for many sufferers.

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[Anonymous Coward]

He's spends 2/3 of his life in bed and still manages to get by. Genius!

Re:Seems easily explainable without the genius tag

[minstrelmike]

We combine waaaay to omuch stuff into categories when discussing intelligence and success.

Take STEM for example. Engineers and mathematicians have two completely different ways of doing stuff, of viewing reality. That's why it's hard to decide which kinds of quirks indicate creativity or intelligence and which indicate "mental illness." (Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness so that's probably not a scientific criterion).

"Certified Genius"

[Sir Holo]

So what earns a person certification in being a genius?

150+ on Stanford-Binet? 145+ on Wechsler? A life where one generates a great amount of new science/art/architecture/writing? A ton of Patents?

IQ is just a raw measure of the potential of a mind. The "mental velocity", as they call it. What one does with it. . . That is what really differentiates the geniuses.

Never declare anyone a genius until they are at least 35 years old. The truth is that you just can't tell which ones will bloom – so provide opportunities to all of the ones who exhibit high IQs or similar at a young age. Observe their progress and proclivities, and you might just be part of the formative years of a genius. (or you can quench it, as frequently happens)

Re: "Certified Genius"

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse thing anyone ever did to me.
Bloody trick cyclists told parents,school etc that I measured very high in various I.q and memory tests,so of course everyone expected me to act like one..

Re:"Certified Genius"

[gweihir]

IQ is mostly immaterial to it. IQ does not include you ability to apply that intelligence and it does not include the skill to determine where it makes sense to apply that intelligence. Of course, you need some level of IQ to be able to actually solve the questions you have identified as worthwhile, but a lot of people have that.

The trick is successful independent thinking, and, for the popular "definition" of "genius", luck in the sense that your contribution is something that gets hyped in the popular opinion.

Take Newton for example. That cretin set mathematics back a few decades by ruthlessly pushing his own inferior integral definition over the vastly superior one by Leibniz. Without Newton, quite a few follow-up things in mathematics would have gone a lot faster. His "breakthroughs" in Physics are of similar quality: He was first to publish, but it took a lot of cleanup because his approach was pretty bad. And without him, things would have been vastly done better just a few years later, while with him it took decades of stagnation and cleanup. However, public opinion sees him as a "genius". In actual reality he was a pretty incompetent megalomaniac hack that did many disservices to Science.

Re:"Certified Genius"

[Anonymous Coward]

... or fail to bloom, because you're idiots, and pearls before swine, should not be cast.

"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[hcs_$reboot]

...at a time one cannot say to actually be gay...

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[Cmdln Daco]

Or, conversely, before it was trendy to post-mortem "identify" people as being gay, without any real evidence..

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[avandesande]

Is it so hard to believe people can just be celibate?

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it so hard to believe people can just be celibate?

Maybe if there was something quite wrong with their hormone levels.

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[iampiti]

When I was depressed I had no sex desire at all so, yes, certain mind "states" can lead to celibacy. I might be that whatever made them so intelligent also made them uninterested in sex

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[GameboyRMH]

I get the feeling that Tesla and Leonardo Da Vinci were asexual. Leo once wrote something about how he thought the "means of reproduction" were so disgusting that he was amazed people hadn't gone extinct.

Now Newton was not merely disinterested in sex like Tesla and Da Vinci, but was religiously opposed to sexual activity, so yeah there's a good chance he was sucking dudes off in the bathroom at every opportunity.

Re: "Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely explanation: for most with autism, the payback (sex) is too little to justify the immense amount of time, money, and work it takes to achieve. As teens with raging hormones & automatic good looks, they might care + do it a few times. As their looks fade, hormones drop, and the amount of work needed for sex with decreasingly-attractive people goes up, they decide it's not worth the effort.

Give a late-thirtysomething man testosterone therapy, and his motivation for sex will go way up.

Convince him he needs to lose the "dadbod" so he'll go to the gym (and see rapid progress, thanks to "vitamin T").

If he's gay, introduce him to Grindr, show him he can find sex with about as much effort as it takes to order a pizza online, and watch him turn into an INSTANT manwhore... at least, until he fucks his way through the easy ones & it starts to take more time & work to hook up.

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[Anonymous Coward]

It was probably easier to be celibate back then. Things we take for granted didn't exist like, hot running water, deodorants, quality toothbrushes, toothpaste, dentistry, women's razors, toilet paper, soap that won't take your skin off, penicillin. I would imagine everyone smelled homeless back then.

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[hcs_$reboot]

Is it so hard to believe people can just be celibate?

what would be the problem (now) if they were gay (at the time)?

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[avandesande]

Nothing- just the idea that if someone is celibate they must be a repressed gay is ridiculous.

Re:"Tesla and Newton were celibate"

[hcs_$reboot]

Nothing- just the idea that if someone is celibate they must be a repressed gay is ridiculous.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if they were gay at the time, they couldn't have talked openly about it, and therefore this is a possibility to be considered.

Quirk

[The Evil Atheist]

There are more quirkly homeless people than quirky geniuses. We don't need to spread the myth about quirks being a fundamental particle of genius. We already have too much self-described geniuses on websites like Slashdot who are arseholes because they read a self-confirming article that many geniuses were arseholes.

Re:Quirk

[king neckbeard]

But we might want to spread the idea that if we are a little more accommodating to neurological differences, we might end up with more geniuses, and the products of their labor. You are also assuming that there aren't any homeless geniuses (or people who could be geniuses if they had appropriate care).

Re:Quirk

[gtall]

I agree we ought to be more accommodating to neurological differences...but we'd have to jettison much of the Western religions to do it.

Academia tends to be more accommodating to neurological differences than the commercial world. The downside of that is when quirky individuals teach rather than confine themselves to research, they can sometimes be very disruptive. I've seen many graduate students ruined by professors who were quirky to the point of obnoxious.

Re:Quirk

[110010001000]

I was thinking the same thing. Everyone on Slashdot is a special snowflake and that explains their crappy behavior. I'll bet most Slashdotters think they have Aspbergers.

Re:Quirk

[The Evil Atheist]

I'm not sure how jettisoning Western religions would help. The thing about genius is that geniuses can believe the wrong things. Einstein disbelieved quantum mechanics, and Godel believed he was in danger of being poisoned. Abolishing people's tendencies to believe the wrong things would also abolish the very thing that can make someone a genius.

Re:Quirk

[king neckbeard]

Slashdot almost certainly has a disproportionate amount of autistics, and the current figures for autism are 1 in 68, so the chunk of Slashdot with autism is probably pretty substantial.

Re:Quirk

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually from living in a big city quirky homeless people is like 0.000001% of them. I only know one out of hundreds, and I wouldn't even call them quirky....

Re:Quirk

[110010001000]

Yep. Everyone is special here. Just like everyone else.

Re:Quirk

[king neckbeard]

Cool strawman, bro. I said that a good chunk of Slashdot is autistic. Most of the rest of the internet would not disagree.

Re:Quirk

[serviscope_minor]

you're "special", that's for sure.

Re:Quirk

[Translation Error]

I think I'd rather have more people being a bit quirky than everyone acting normally and rationally every single waking hour of the day.

Re:Quirk

[king neckbeard]

I'm okay with more rational behavior, but that has little overlap with what is normal.

Re:Quirk

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more quirkly homeless people than quirky geniuses. We don't need to spread the myth about quirks being a fundamental particle of genius.

Quirkiness can be fundamental to genius and also be more often found in idiots. The two are not diametrically opposed. Much like autistic savants are sometimes amazing, but the majority of autistic people perform below expected norms at every task.

Re:Quirk

[Anonymous Coward]

I think has more to do with support structure. Some people just don't have anyone that cares about them, getting them on track, proper medication. There is a varying level of functioning when it comes to mental illness.

Where do I collect my certificate?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I got quirky habits down pat. Loads of them. Quirky is actually a charitable way to describe them, that much quirky. So where do I collect my certificate for geniusity ? or is it geniusness?

Re:Where do I collect my certificate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if one were more intelligent, determining the proper word to use wouldn't be such a struggle.

Amphetamines

[KozmoStevnNaut]

The use of amphetamines isn't a quirk, it's just common sense.

Re:Amphetamines

[Anonymous Coward]

And fun!

Re:Amphetamines

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the joke. I, as an adult, am in the process of an ADHD diagnosis. I just started Adderall (Ritalin made me lose my mind). Honestly, ADHD or not, I really think this could help a lot of people who are terrible with procrastination and avoidance behaviors (alternatively, maybe the majority of those people actually have a neural abnormality, like ADHD).

Re:Amphetamines

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I'm serious. Amphetamines can work wonders for people such as yourself, and even if not used as a treatment, it's the only drug that keeps you awake, alert and on top of things, when used responsibly of course.

Re:Amphetamines

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll get no argument from me. I started self medicating with Phentermine a while back and the improvement in my quality of life has been dramatic. I'm not suicidally depressed most of the time, my appetite no longer consumes my life, I can focus on problems significantly more easily, my mood is more stable, I have more energy, etc.

Only downside is I don't sleep as well as I used to and I can sometimes lose track of what I'm saying as I'm saying it, which is weird. I can live with that.

Unfortunately, I'm about to run out and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to convince my doctor to prescribe more. Doctors are like that. They talk a good game about wanting to help people but in my experience they are just as lazy as everyone else and just categorize you as quickly as they can into one of a few common diagnosis and refuse to give a shit if the treatment isn't working or is making your life worse.

Re:Amphetamines

[Anonymous Coward]

And great 9+ hour sex!

Re:Amphetamines

[Anonymous Coward]

Most doctors are not really interested in YOUR well being.
For years, I was forced to self-medicate by traveling overseas to purchase my medications. Finally, after many years, I found a domestic source that understood the problem

If you know what you need and can't get it here, start looking at international sources. You may also be happily surprised by low prices.

Re:Amphetamines

[Anonymous Coward]

Look into armodafinil 150mg; fine to take once or twice a week, but the long (15hr) halflife makes it useless for binges.
Otherwise it's 15hrs of being perfectly awake and feeling almost compelled to work; even without sleep. The non time-release version has some studies verifying it's safety for occasional use.

Very widely used as a study drug/cognitive enhancer, since it doesn't have the negative side effects of stimulant use.

Population statistics

[sjbe]

There are more quirkly homeless people than quirky geniuses.

Just playing devil's advocate but is this actually true and what is the evidence for or against? Are you just assuming it to be true because it sounds right? We're talking about opposite ends of the spectrum in many cases but both tend to be some standard deviations outside the norm. It wouldn't actually surprise me if the number of crazy geniuses in total wasn't all that different from the number of crazy homeless people. I have no evidence for or against but it is an interesting question. (to me anyway...)

We already have too much self-described geniuses on websites like Slashdot who are arseholes because they read a self-confirming article that many geniuses were arseholes.

There's definitely a surviorship bias in play here.

Re:Population statistics

[The Evil Atheist]

There are more homeless people than there are geniuses. It's simply easier to become homeless than be a genius. Out of those groups, quirkiness would have to be much much more common in geniuses than in homeless people for there to be roughly similar numbers.

Re:Population statistics

[king neckbeard]

According to US stats, 85 out of 100,000 people in the US are homeless. That's 0.085% of the population. A Stanford-Bbinet score of 150 or higher would be present in 0.089% of the population. Depending on where you draw the line for genius, either one could be more prevalent. Yes, you can become homeless, while you can't become a genius, but the current distribution of the two groups are not as radically different as you claim.

Re:Population statistics

[The Evil Atheist]

It's funny how no intelligence tests makes falsifiable predictions about who shows the signs of genius yet so many people assume they're scientific. http://www.independent.co.uk/n... According to you and sjbe, this child is more of a genius than Einstein. I bet none of you would actually call this child a genius until she does something that you would recognize as genius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

How many of these people would you or sjbe actually admit are/were geniuses?

Re:Population statistics

[king neckbeard]

Again, it depends on how you define genius, for which there is no hard rule. I personally don't conclude that 'genius' implies accomplishment, just ability that is a number of standard deviations away from the norm. A person can be a genius whose intellectual capacity far exceeds Einstein in intellectual capacity, yet spends their entire life as a janitor or sweatshop worker. In my view, not all genius have monumental accomplishments, but monumental accomplishments tend to be accomplished by geniuses.

I also recognize that IQ is not anywhere near a perfect metric. However, it's largest flaws in regards to detecting genius would be that it tends to underestimate those with less well-rounded skills. For example, a savant might score poorly to average on one section, and go far beyond the tests abilities in other areas, or make mistakes because they don't properly understand the questions.

Re:Population statistics

[The Evil Atheist]

I personally don't conclude that 'genius' implies accomplishment, just ability that is a number of standard deviations away from the norm.

Everyone who has been historically considered a genius had notable achievements to their name. Achievements, and peer recogntion, are undeniable criteria for being considered a genius.

Re:Population statistics

[king neckbeard]

Everyone who has been historically considered has had notable achievements because history doesn't record the unremarkable actions of unremarkable people.

Here are the dictionary definitions of genius: 1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability. 2. a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect.

Those don't include any kind of requirement of achievement. The etymology of 'genius' roughly translates to 'inborn' or 'innate,' although it was attributed to a spirit, and didn't come to exclusively refer to exceptional ability until later. You are simply moving the goalposts because your original post was statistically nonsense.

Re:Population statistics

[Wraithlyn]

Please find me a dictionary definition of genius that specifies a requirement for historically significant achievements.

You're insisting on your own personal definition, and making a circular argument based on it. "All historically notable geniuses have done historically notable things", well no shit Sherlock.

Re:Population statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you see survivorship bias with the homeless as well. I pose that a lot of people couldn't survive without, food, shelter, refrigeration and medicine. Those who can't end up in jail, institutions and early graves. A successful homeless person is probably smarter than you would think.

Hmmmmm....

[mrsam]

Looks to me like there's a lot of geniuses around here... Wait, I'm here too...

LOGICAL REASONING

[N3wsByt3]

I have some truly peculiar habits, therefor I am a genius.

If it works and it is stupid, it aint stupid.

[houghi]

Many people do similar things. It is a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy. There are sports people who have to go on the field with the right foot first. Some will want to have a lucky number as shirtnumber.
A politician might want to have his tie done in a cerain way.
In programming: Some will use spaces instead of tabs.

The result is the same: It works. Now why is that? Because when you do it, you won't spend time thinking how you did NOT do it. That time can then be used for the task at hand. And when you need to be concentrated 100%, you will be better than using 1% thinking how something is a bit off.

We learn as kids that a kiss on the knee is the bestest way to stop a booboo.

And I am sure that everybody has things like this and that has nothing to do with autism or anything else. Just human behaviour.

Re:If it works and it is stupid, it aint stupid.

[gtall]

Just in general, the regular pop. does not get statistics. When a street light pops as a person walks under it, frequently they attribute it to some dark force. The number of street lights popping intersected with the number of people walking under them will lead to a great number of dark forces at work.

Re:If it works and it is stupid, it aint stupid.

[GenYGuy]

It is also about confidence. Particularly for athletes, politicians and other performers, mental conditioning and feeling confident are really important, especially at the highest levels. I grew up around hockey players, who are known for their superstitions and weird pregame rituals they have. I've also seen the difference confidence can make in the performance of an individual who is objectively very good. Most of these people know that putting your left sock on before the right doesn't REALLY make a difference in the grand scheme of things, but they do it anyway because it gets them in the right mindset to perform at their best.

Try using actual data

[sjbe]

There are more homeless people than there are geniuses

It depends on how you define genius. Approximately 2.2% of the population has an IQ above 140 which is the cutoff for MENSA membership. Approximately in the US is homeless. So if you are talking Newton or Tesla level geniuses you might be right but if you define genius as the smartest 1-2% of the population then there are at least as many geniuses as homeless people.

Basically you are simply assuming there are more homeless people than geniuses when in fact the data seems to show that probably isn't actually true, at least in the US and most other modern countries.

It's simply easier to become homeless than be a genius.

That is an assumption not an evidence based fact.

Out of those groups, quirkiness would have to be much much more common in geniuses than in homeless people for there to be roughly similar numbers.

See the data above which seems to disagree with you.

Re:Try using actual data

[The Evil Atheist]

It depends on how you define genius. Approximately 2.2% of the population has an IQ above 140 which is the cutoff for MENSA membership.

UnluckiIy for you, IQ doesn't test for genius, and neither does MENSA membership. For one thing, you can practice for IQ tests. No different from all the high performing students who get amazingly high marks but fail to produce results in the real world. Like it or not, genius has a large "peer review" component and is one of those "we know it when we see it" type things.

It's simply easier to become homeless than be a genius.

That is an assumption not an evidence based fact.

Really? And you have examples of people who were of average intelligence and skill suddenly found themselves on the top tier in a matter of weeks or months through no fault of their own? You can miss a few weeks rent and become a genius?

See the data above which seems to disagree with you.

Yeah. Cherry picked meaningless data on the IQ/MENSA front. You may as well not have bothered. Making up meaningless metrics is worse than acknowledging that there is no good measure.

What does this have to do with genius?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you can provide something that is really measurable I'd say this is just people who were geniuses who happened to have quirks. I know tons of people with little oddities that don't know the answer to a doorbell. Does it happen more in geniuses? Maybe but nothing here seems to prove it. I'm not a genius but I have personality quirks too, does that mean anything? Probably not.

Re: What does this have to do with genius?

[Anonymous Coward]

My previous comment proves I only read the summary and not the entire article.

Don't forget RMS

[slashdice]

he eats his own toe jam.

Re:Don't forget RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every speech is a well orchestrated apple-esque keynote.

This is an important limitation of high IQ.

[hey!]

People who are extremely intelligent are accustomed to being right when everyone around them are wrong and in fact aren't bright enough to realize they're wrong. This is not a good thing.

The smartest person I know (and I know a *lot* of smart people) had an affair with a married man that any idiot would have known was going to end badly. But there was no point in debating that with her because it would be like climbing into the ring and sparring with Ali in his prime. She never, ever loses an argument. I suspect part of the attraction of this guy was that he was kind of a fixer-upper. He in fact did leave his wife, moved in with my friend, and then promptly fell in love with her male apartment-mate. The problems he was having were him coming to terms with being gay, so in an ironic way she did end up fixing him up.

Being able to argue circles around other people invites a kind of stupidity that is the exclusive property of the very smart or very rich. When it's a harmless odd opinion like walking around naked taking "air baths", we call it "quirky". Sometimes it's even right, like Tesla's toe-scrunching; neuroscientists now know that helps the brain with "executive functions" like planning and attention control. But that same mule-headedness can have a darker side, like Nobel laureate Shockley's racial "theories".

This is why I think gifted education is so important, not because the educators themselves can do much for the truly gifted, but having intellectual peers who challenge the gifted student on an equal basis teaches that student a lesson smart people often miss out on.

Re:This is an important limitation of high IQ.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, maybe it's not always your place to fix your friends' relationships. Sometimes people just need to make their own mistakes, all people, not just the extraordinarily stubborn.

Not limited to scientists

[Deadstick]

Stonewall Jackson held one arm aloft as much as he could, even riding into battle -- supposedly to equalize blood flow. He didn't quit even after he caught a bullet that way.

Bullshit article

[paiute]

We all have quirky habits. Quirky habits do not a genius make.

Working in an office is pretty weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't weird to sit in a cubicle all day and shuffle files around to make the rich richer

"Peculiar" until we prove the benefit(s)...

[evolutionary]

At that point, it's considered further evidence of the practitioner's brilliance.

Amphetamines have an accepted medical use

[Anonymous Coward]

Amphetamines are routinely prescribed today for patients diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine

It's quite possible, maybe, that Erdos had ADD (or ADHD) and found a substance that cleared his head of all the cloudy thinking and distracting thoughts that can happen with ADD and was simply self-medicating. Without all of the inner distractions of ADD getting in the way, Erdos' true genius-level thinking could break through. It's also possible that he was taking too much and fueling the 20-hour math marathons.. OR, it's possible that he just enjoyed mathematics so much that, with a clear mind, he was able to focus for extended periods of time doing what he loved.

After working in a school with special needs kids

[zerofoo]

I can definitively say that cerebro-diversity is a thing. Our school focuses on dyslexic and Asperger's kids - their brains are wired differently and as a result, they see the world differently.

I'll bet most of the geniuses found in history also had brains that were wired differently than most of us. That would explain their talents and their quirks.

I don't think you can simply adopt a few odd behaviors in the hopes of attaining genius status.

It's the other way around!

[aglider]

The fact that a genius does something doesn't imply that if you do the same you are or become a genius.

Second Sleep

[Anonymous Coward]

While I may not score at the top of the genius ranks, I've done a few exceptional things in my life. One quirk I have is a sleep habit that was common before artificial indoor lighting, "second sleep." When I sleep, I sleep for about four hours, awaken, fully rested, and then work for two hours in the really quiet environment that exists at that time of day. I get a little tired, then I sleep for another 3-4 hours. Works for me.

Re:Second Sleep

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to see I'm not alone.
This pattern allows me to maintain a "normal" diurnal sleep cycle and feels very natural..

The 2-3 waking hours in the middle of the night let's me evaluate the previous day, and plan for the next day without interruption. It's very productive, yet relaxing.

IQ tests are a sham

[Anonymous Coward]

The real key to finding intelligence is to get a person fall-down drunk AND THEN administer the IQ test.
That's the shiny apple that hit Newton.

quirky, huh?

[Curunir_wolf]

I wouldn't really describe masturbating five times a day, using your bulbous gut as a potato chip tray, and slurping Red Bull all night as "quirky."

Einstein's sleeping

[Anonymous Coward]

was probably a result of him being so briliant not being brilliant because he slept a lot. Hi brain probably needed the extra time to regenerate.

Self cleaning Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating toe jam?

Perhaps...

[martinfb]

Perhaps many of those things we generally classify as "fantastically weird" would be a bit more mainstream if we were to get better educated in reality and less "morally righteous"!

What do YOU thing might better serve mankind?

Survivor fallacy. That is all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Survivor fallacy. That is all.

Well, also self-selection and audience bias for 'interesting' people and stories.

Boring people who just do the work and succeed are less marketable.

Marketers: Just kill yourself.