Is it possible that non-STEM people are the true geniuses?
Why is it that an enormous majority of the people with real talent (something they have that others do not no matter how hard they work for it) become singers, actors, musicians, artists, etc?
Is it because nearly all positions in all fields in STEM are achievable through hard work alone, and only those at the absolute pinnacle of their field possess verifiable talent?
I mean look at how many nameless STEM people there are who will never contribute anything more meaningful than "me too-ing" their name onto a few research papers.
Now compare that to the endless sea of famous non-stem artists/musicians/etc.
How many STEM giants actually get real recoginition and praise of genius OUTSIDE the STEM fields?
Einstein? Tesla? Elon Musk? Michio Kaku? Neil Degrasse Tyson? Bill Nye? (look how quickly that devolved to pop sci)
Now off the top of your head, think of all the artists and musicians people outside their "field" consider to be geniuses? Countless, right?
Face reality: STEM is all about hard work, not talent. That's why so many people who "are only good at book smarts" become STEM majors, and why STEM has such an inferiority complex about IQ and intelligence.
Because they can't prove they are a genius, whereas everyone can recognize genius outside of STEM.
Dominic Rogers
yeah omg tyga is a genius
Brayden Jones
>pop "musicians" have talent >repeating a 14151451 pattern over and over again and writing retarded teenage angst lyrics
>Is it possible that non-STEM people are the true geniuses? no
Austin Gonzalez
Those "talents" you speak of are actually different types of intelligence.
If someone trains on a balance beam or trains with science books, in theory they should then do well in that field.
Anyone who excels in their field can be considered a genius, in that field.
Adrian Brooks
that is just a generous title that dilutes the significance of true genius.
>that kid has a 95 average in physics? he must be a genius! vs >that kid scored a perfect SAT at age 8 and a bachelors in physics at age 13, PhD at 16
i'm talking about true genius, of which STEM is sorely lacking for reasons above.
Brandon Turner
>Anyone who excels in their field can be considered a genius, in that field.
Is JK Rowling a genius?
Nolan Carter
JK Rowling isn't a good writer
your "reasons" are retarded. it's basically "hurr STEM people aren't popular". no shit.
Alexander Baker
What are you talking about? JK Rowling is one of the best selling and best recognized (if not THE best recognized) authors alive today.
Hudson Thomas
If more people are becoming singers, actors, etc. than scientists, doesn't that mean that their talent is cheaper and that the lesser-populated STEM field is the refuge of the truly exceptional?
>Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. -Arthur Schopenhauer
That's why everyone can recognize ''''genius'''' outside of STEM.
>7/8 got me to respond
Christopher Gomez
nobody considers tyga a genius. someone people would call a genius is kanye. kanye is super super autistic and that makes him good at what he does as a legitimate innovator and cultural figurehead.
Charles Campbell
popularity is not ability
Aiden Murphy
>kanye is a legitimate innovator and cultural figurehead hahahaha holy shit
Grayson Morris
>my arbitrary metric a priori rules out anything i disagree with
Austin Carter
shit son tell me why not.
Parker Morris
Non sequitur. Famous doesn't make you smart. Working memory is something you develop and improve. Science requires data and skilled labour, so me too-ing can actually be useful.
Brandon Rivera
JK Rowling isn't a good writer.
Evan Morales
She succeeded greatly in her field, by your very definition she would be a genius.
Hunter White
she excelled at making money selling books, sure not at being a great writer
Sebastian Gray
it's because those non-STEM 'geniuses' you talk about get more exposure due to their profession ask somebody on the street if they've heard of alexander grothendieck or jean pierre serre and they're likely to answer no STEM produces more geniuses, but nobody cares because the things STEM geniuses do can't be seen or heard by common people
Easton Jenkins
stop acting black when youre a white suburban teen
Ryder Stewart
well shit do
the guy had a growth on his dick mayne
Michael Russell
Why do STEM majors engineer the finest shitposts?
Jeremiah Price
not white, not suburban you've made no counter. kanye has bad press because he's a literal autist and can't talk but if you're at all interested in hiphop/musicingeneral he's done great stuff.
Julian Bailey
*not a teen either
Mason Butler
This. STEM geniuses are only able to "express" their geniuses through advanced mathematical equations and calculus, stuff that 99% of non STEM people can't understand. It's like another language to them. Most true geniuses in music don't get that much exposure either because their music is too obscure and non normie friendly, it's really the same deal there
Isaiah Anderson
everybody can listen to a popular song and admit that it's catchy 99% of people don't even know what a matrice or an integral is how do you expect them to appreciate a mathematical genius? seriously OP your idea makes zero sense
David Flores
real geniuses make art AND do math
Kevin Martin
Most study STEM for the easy money. Consider all the poo in the loos.
Follow the herd...
Wyatt Reed
This.
Sebastian Wright
Not really, only people exposed to that type of music might find it catchy, someone who'd never listened to music before might find it horrendous noise.
You've been conditioned to appreciate matrices and integrals.
Jace Murphy
Music, film etc. produces more "geniuses" because anyone can understand those things to some degree. You may not understand the structure of a musical piece, but you can enjoy it nonetheless and define the creator as a genius based on the emotional content of the piece.
You can't really do that with science, as it is so formal.
Being a famous genius really depends on the accessibility of the field. You cannot recognize a "genius" if you do not understand what he or she does at least on a surface level. You know the person is smart, but you have no measure of how smart or ingenious.
That's it.
Ryder Gomez
>not writing the chord pattern with Roman numerals
Pleb
Angel James
>Being a famous genius really depends on the accessibility of the field.
Few people understand the nature of genius in art or music, they have to be told why it is the work of a genius. The same is true for maths and physics.
This is why you get people saying "I don't know what art is but I know what I like".
Cooper Parker
>Is it possible that non-STEM people are the true geniuses?
Being good at maths is only a tiny fraction of being a genius/gifted or having high IQ. It is the most popular in pop culture and people associate high intelligence with it but it isn't the only defining feature of a smart person. Sometimes people of high intelligence suck at math too, though that mostly comes down to lack of effort from their part.
Jeremiah Morris
>The same is true for maths and physics. No, it's not. Mathematics and physics are measurable and clear, a musical "genius" composes a pattern of notes that is entirely up to the listener to judge.
Luis Collins
Not him but how Mozart being able to re-compose a musical piece from memory after hearing it once not an objective sign of being a musical genius?
Nicholas Davis
That's an objective sign that he has incredible memory and a good ear, it says nothing about his musical ability.
Ryder Peterson
>Mathematics and physics are measurable and clear
This is precisely why genius in the arts is much harder to judge and hence STEM students are unnerved by the humanities, preferring instead the formulaic nature of the sciences.
This is also why so many Asians like STEM, it's rigid and predictable structure appeals to their hive psychologies.
Jason Gray
No, calling someone an artistic "genius" has no meaning because your subjective criteria for being a genius is arbitrary and worthless.
Explain why your opinion is any more valid than a 14 year old girl who worships Justin Beiber and calls him a genius.
Hudson Cruz
Praise, especially by uneducated, ordinary people, means nothing to a genius.
Gabriel Young
You're just taking it down to the basics of what being a genius is.
What you said applies to genius stem people as well, ergo by your logic there are no objective stem geniuses.
Samuel Garcia
Having a good subconscious feel for handling situations in realtime is what impresses me most.
And I'm not just talking about physical activities, but also more subtle activity such as meditation and exhibiting that "in the zone" or state of tranquility in high pressure situations which would make normal people choke.
Isaiah Fisher
Not at all, re read my post. Newton did not discover calculus because he had a good memory.
Julian Thompson
Genius is a categorization of prestige and merit from others in your field, yes?
Camden Scott
hip hop isn't music
Ayden Wilson
Answer: no /thread
Jose Howard
>Having perfect pitch has nothing to do with musical ability
Angel Lopez
Kek
Austin Watson
>No, calling someone an artistic "genius" has no meaning because your subjective criteria for being a genius is arbitrary and worthless.
No, it's based upon a very hard to grasp notion of quality.
>Explain why your opinion is any more valid than a 14 year old girl who worships Justin Beiber and calls him a genius.
Exactly what way could Bieber be compared favourably with Mozart?
If anything you demonstrate how the modern society is part of a cultural dumbing down. STEM as a phenomena is part of that.
Oliver Young
sage
reported for shitposting also
Charles Fisher
>That which is genius is of very high quality, that which is of very high quality is genius
Cameron Hill
>>That which is genius is of very high quality, that which is of very high quality is genius
You're starting to get there.
In STEM it's a lot more clearer cut.
Cameron Hughes
If you believe that musical/art geniuses got there through talent alone and not hard work you are clearly deluded
Dylan Anderson
>real talent Unfalsifiable nonsense. You cannot prove that people with "real talent" didn't just work harder/better than people without.
Ian Taylor
>You cannot prove that people with "real talent" didn't just work harder/better than people without.
"Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration." - Einstein
Camden Turner
>lmao anybody can be Terry Tao >again Let's not do that again. For genius, you need both.
Jeremiah Clark
He has literally shown an ability to innovate within hip-hop. Just because you think it's not a legitimate artform doesn't change this.
Nathaniel Ortiz
>driving a meat coated skeleton
>(((driving)))
that implies that you are in charge, which you are not. free will is an illusion and does not really exist. you're being driven, you are not the driver
Isaiah Lewis
People actually believe this?
Jeremiah Carter
how can you not?
Connor Bennett
You do realise, that most of "genius artists" are just a face of big money making machine. Real geniuses are writers, scenographers and producers.
Charles Cook
He set the precedent for much of today's hip hop.
Dylan Cook
Artistic genius here, not even baiting.
Sometimes, I wish I could be better at science. I'm pretty average, but patterns are something I'm good at.
Christopher Fisher
post your work
Jayden Davis
>uses a cute game to demonstrate his point That's pretty adorable user, no lie