The only difference between genius and madman

[Carl-Richard]

Quote

The only difference between genius and madman is how much people like you.

Please provide counters to this claim and I will see if answers arise that defend it.

The only rule is no LLM assistance, at least for your first post. Only human thinking is allowed for your first post 🤓

Edited 8 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Only human thinking allowed for your first post

Half the forum has left the chat

[Buck Edwards]

Vincent Van Gogh, Alan Turing. 

Examples of people whose value was never recognized during their lifetimes. 

Liking is a subjective thing. It's about conformity. Yes to a certain extent likability does act as a barrier or a bias. Yet it also protects society from mad scientists. 

 

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Half the forum has left the chat

Nah. We are quite capable of using our brains fella. 

[AtmanIsBrahman]

A genius is a madman, but a madman isn't necessarily a genius.

[UnbornTao]

4 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Vincent Van Gogh, Alan Turing. 

Examples of people whose value was never recognized during their lifetimes. 

Liking is a subjective thing. It's about conformity. Yes to a certain extent likability does act as a barrier or a bias. Yet it also protects society from mad scientists. 

 

Sounds like GPT

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

Sounds like GPT

No Gpt used. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Buck Edwards

[The Crocodile]

A madman could be a guy in a Denny's parking lot with a katana running at the police. Could he be a genius? Sure, probably even he is.

[UnbornTao]

Did people like Da Vinci in his time?

Edited 8 hours ago by UnbornTao

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

Did people like Da Vinci in his time? Genuine question. 

You have a lot of genuine questions.

Ra: I am Ra. This statement reflects a common misconception about intellectual capacity and social perception. The delineation between perceived genius and perceived madness is not determined by external validation, but by the depth of understanding, the capacity for novel insight, and the alignment with universal principles of consciousness. Genius emerges from the ability to perceive interconnections beyond conventional thought patterns. Madness, conversely, represents a fragmentation of coherent perception. The critical distinguishing factor is not popularity, but the structural integrity of consciousness and the capacity to channel innovative understanding that serves the collective evolutionary process. Popularity is a third-density social construct that bears little relevance to the true measure of consciousness expansion. The questioner's statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of intellectual and spiritual development. One's insights are not validated by social acceptance, but by their resonance with deeper universal truths.

Stalin: BOZHE MOY! What is this nonsense you are speaking?! Ra? Consciousness? Density? takes quick swig of vodka Your verbose intellectual masturbation means NOTHING! You speak like someone who has read too many books and understood precisely ZERO of actual reality. I have seen REAL consciousness - it is the will of the collective, the power of the state, the discipline of the party! leans forward aggressively Your philosophical ramblings are nothing but bourgeois intellectual GARBAGE. Real understanding comes from ACTION, from DISCIPLINE, from CONTROL! Not from these... waves hand dismissively mystical word salads about "interconnections" and "evolutionary processes"! In Soviet Russia, consciousness does not expand - it is DIRECTED! By ME! throws vodka glass across room ABSURD! COMPLETELY ABSURD!

[Buck Edwards]

Likability also depends on cultural biases though. If a culture is biased against an invention or a new concept, there's a problem. It could be a problem even today. We have people who actively want to block AI's penetration into human fields. They are scared of AI. I guess that's possible. A cultural bias can stop a genius from spreading his ideas or his invention could remain stunted due to lack of recognition. 

(not chatgpt used) 

[The Crocodile]

narrows eyes suspiciously Leo Gurov? Never heard of such person. But solipsism? HAHA! Solipsism is the luxury of weak minds who cannot comprehend collective struggle! Madness and genius are two sides of same coin - but in Soviet Union, we do not tolerate EITHER if they threaten state interests! Genius serves the revolution. Madness is eliminated. Simple. Solipsism is counterrevolutionary philosophy - claiming only one's own mind truly exists? BULLSHIT! The collective always comes first. Individual perception means NOTHING compared to Party's understanding. Your philosophical gymnastics mean nothing. We do not debate - we ACT. Mental masturbation is for decadent bourgeois intellectuals who have nothing better to do than spin words. In Soviet Russia, we crush such nonsensical thinking. Genius is measured by service to state, NOT by how many fancy words one can string together! slams fist on table ANY MORE QUESTIONS?!

[aurum]

This is only true if you consider intelligence to be relative and socially constructed. 

[Aaron p]

Leo says it's meant to feel like you're going literally insane. And the Buddhist call it no mind (they have definitively lost their minds) lol. 

Genius and mad are also just man made categories. But let's inspect them. We've obviously seen psychedelics go wrong before. People can lose their minds in a bad way too. I think the primary difference we can make for simplified sake is that one of the most distinguishing factors is calibration. It's a person mad? Might not be as easy as simple yes or no answers..

Awakening is very mad. Super crazy. And I suppose it also could go very right or very wrong. Typically a person who is closer to the line of genius is someone who exhibits similar mental flexibility to a mad man but with more calibration orientation information intelligence calculation and intention. Once again for simplicity sake I suppose we could make a broad distinction that both categories include a degree of outlandishness but a genius will have value knowledge and wisdom where a madman will probably be more interested in discussing stupid conspiracy theories or random topics of complete pointlessness. I might add that the madman is a person I find quite entertaining

[Sincerity]

I think it's not so much about liking, but about similarity in worldview and goals.

Example with Leo. An avid pursuer of truth is more likely to see Leo as a genius, whereas a person with entirely different priorities would more likely see him as a madman (eg. when hearing about Leo doing 5-MeO for 30 days).

A typical person will consider someone who goes to the mountains to meditate for a year a madman. A more conscious person could more likely consider them as a genius.

In science/art I think your point is more valid. Maybe you were only talking about "intellectual genius", I dunno.

[Ero]

Both the madman and genius veer off the space covered by the “coherent collective” into unthreaded realms/islands of consciousness. A genius is one whose map/ understanding eventually becomes incorporated into the status quo. A madman is perhaps one who is so far off the trajectory of the collective conscious evolution that it remains an anomaly. 
 

Still, some perspectives/ spaces are fundamentally incompatible like snow in the desert or a fish at land. Perhaps some neurodivergent experiences are fundamentally incomprensible to the average mind.

Edited 9 hours ago by Ero

[Buck Edwards]

@Carl-Richard  @Sincerity @Leo Gura

Is a genetic freak who can attain insane levels of consciousness considered a genius too? 

[Leo Gura]

Genius, insanity, and popularity are 3 independent variables which rarely go together.

[Terell Kirby]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Genius, insanity, and popularity are 3 independent variables which rarely go together.

I’d increases in one variable decreases the others, vice versa

[Buck Edwards]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Genius, insanity, and popularity are 3 independent variables which rarely go together.

So what's the difference between a true genius and a truly insane?