The only difference between genius and madman

[Rishabh R]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Most mentally ill people are not geniuses, they are homeless drug addicts living on the streets mumbling to themselves.

But I despite being mentally ill don't live on street but rather in my hostel and sometimes I go home to meet my parents. I don't do drugs but am on medication prescribed by my doctor. 😁

[Aaron p]

I think Leo means like extreme cases when he says the word insane. No doubt there are people who are completely mentally lost to such a degree that no amount of love or empathy could change them. They probably are violent 2

[trenton]

I agreed with that idea for a long time. I had that experience in high school. I was talking about scientific advances that could help humanity survive despite climate change. I talked about colonizing other planets like Mars. Everybody around me started talking to me like I was stupid.

Later that day, Stephen Hawking came out with the same idea of colonizing other planets in response to climate change. The message was well received and the message was considered genius because it came from him. The scientific community does this all the time with technological utopianism like when all the big name scientists subscribed to simulation theory, and it's treated like genius because people like the messenger. This is the problem of authority in science. Someone with less reputation would be branded a complete dumbass for saying the same thing as a famous scientist.

If you are looking for counter examples, there are many ways to go about it. In science you can the radical scientists who had epic breakthroughs only to be rejected by the scientific community. This happened all the time like in the theory of evolution, germ theory, or the telescope. There were brilliant scientists who were ostracized and in my experience there are are stupid scientists who are loved and their ideas are accepted blindly.

Obviously this issue goes way beyond science. This issue is prevalent across all fields. For example if I like myself then I might tend to think my ideas are genius.

[Jirh]

Likability depends on two main factors:

1. The value people perceive you give.
2. The value you actually give.

Whether you're smart or not does not really matter in this case.

You could be an insane clown and people will like you. And you could be a genius devil and people will hate you, unless you're the kind of devil that people like 

[Reciprocality]

Everyone sees the similarity between pens and pencils, but the tendency to maintain focus on that similarity has no obvious or clear-cut purpose.

Few sees the similarity between socks and tables, and the tendency to maintain focus on that similarity has often an even less obvious purpose.

A topologist would find the sock to be identical to the table in a certain way, and for someone who needs to write something down before they forget a certain message a pen and a pencil will aid them equally well. 

In both scenarios the very apparent differences are secondary to more abstract similarities, the more general properties that pertain to the items take precedence to the more particular properties. What does genius and madness have to do with this?

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 24/01/2025 at 1:44 AM, Leo Gura said:

Half the forum has left the chat

Totally true 

[zurew]

Im not exactly sure what the challenge is. Im not sure, if you have an epistemic question or a sociology question. If the challenge is about questioning your premise  that "usually people distinguish between genius and madman based on how much they like them" ,then, I won't challenge that, because I agree.

But if the claim is that there isn't any good way or there isn't any good set of heruistics to differentiate between the two ,then I disagree.

 

Making wild/outrageous claims is true for both, but only the genius is capable to provide either a sound justification  for his/her claim and or can demonstrate that his/her claim is true.

And "sound justification" entails (on my view) that the genius can either walk you through step by step for why people should  adopt a new norm to judge things by (this can include changing our idea about what should be considered as a sound justification and this can include what kind of explanatory virtues we should care about and can include how those should be weighed) or simply using  already existing norms in a given field, he/she can show you - why his/her theory/paradigm/model is better than the current one.

Another difference is lack of clarity. A madman usually cant even spell out a clear norm to judge things by, just incoherently rambles about something and claims that his theory/model is better, but its usually unclear what is meant by "better" and or its unclear simply what his insight/breakthrough is about.

Another one is that a madman usually won't have a basic understanding of the field he claims he has a unique insight about. He usually won't be able to name the competing theories and won't be able to specifically point out and explain the issue(s) with them. 

Edited February 11 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

On 11.2.2025 at 3:18 PM, zurew said:

Im not exactly sure what the challenge is. Im not sure, if you have an epistemic question or a sociology question. If the challenge is about questioning your premise  that "usually people distinguish between genius and madman based on how much they like them" ,then, I won't challenge that, because I agree.

But if the claim is that there isn't any good way or there isn't any good set of heruistics to differentiate between the two ,then I disagree.

 

Making wild/outrageous claims is true for both, but only the genius is capable to provide either a sound justification  for his/her claim and or can demonstrate that his/her claim is true.

And "sound justification" entails (on my view) that the genius can either walk you through step by step for why people should  adopt a new norm to judge things by (this can include changing our idea about what should be considered as a sound justification and this can include what kind of explanatory virtues we should care about and can include how those should be weighed) or simply using  already existing norms in a given field, he/she can show you - why his/her theory/paradigm/model is better than the current one.

Another difference is lack of clarity. A madman usually cant even spell out a clear norm to judge things by, just incoherently rambles about something and claims that his theory/model is better, but its usually unclear what is meant by "better" and or its unclear simply what his insight/breakthrough is about.

Another one is that a madman usually won't have a basic understanding of the field he claims he has a unique insight about. He usually won't be able to name the competing theories and won't be able to specifically point out and explain the issue(s) with them. 

I'm saying whatever distinction you make, and whatever you attribute to the genius as opposed to the madman, will be things you like. Sound justification, clarity and having at least a basic understanding, are things you like.

Edited February 13 by Carl-Richard

[CARDOZZO]

Genius is a matter of perspective.

Humans disagree a lot about different geniuses (Musk, Edison, Tesla, Einstein). 

There are people that call Musk a genius, a freak, a thief, a swindler. 

It is all about perspective.

Jobs is a similar case.

 

Edited February 13 by CARDOZZO

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, CARDOZZO said:

Genius is a matter of perspective.

Humans disagree a lot about different geniuses (Musk, Edison, Tesla, Einstein). 

There are people that call Musk a genius, a freak, a thief, a swindler. 

It is all about perspective.

Jobs is a similar case.

Essentially what I'm saying.

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm saying whatever distinction you make, and whatever you attribute to the genius as opposed to the madman, will be things you like. Sound justification, clarity and having at least a basic understanding, are things you like.

Its not about what I like. 

The person who has a sound justification can be an immoral and  incredibly annoying person , but that wouldnt change him/her being a genius.

You could stack all the things I hate and put all those negative traits on the genius, but again , that still wouldnt change my view.

Edited February 13 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its not about what I like. 

The person who has a sound justification can be an immoral and  incredibly annoying person , but that wouldnt change him/her being a genius.

You could stack all the things I hate and put all those negative traits on the genius, but again , that still wouldnt change my view.

"Sound justification" is the thing you like. If you drop that thing and all you have left is the things you don't like, then you will likely skew towards calling them a madman rather than genius.

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Sound justification" is the thing you like. If you drop that thing and all you have left is the things you don't like, then you will likely skew towards calling them a madman rather than genius.

The truthmaker for me (what makes it true or false) isn't indexed to my preferences , it is indexed to what I take justification to be. 

Its more like - yes, if you drop all the necessary conditions of a definition, that definition won't apply anymore.

Edited February 14 by zurew