# Genius isn't necessarily logical, or even rational



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

GENIUS in any particular area isn't necessarily a matter of T function, nor even T/F in terms of being rational. Eric Clapton wasn't an especially intellectual or even nice man, but the song "Layla" in its original form is a work of genius, the slow hand isn't necessarily Christ like or Einstein like. We can apply this to so many examples. Discuss.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I find people tend to overrate classic rock songs a little, Layla being one example of such...

But I think the obvious point here is that it all depends on what you define "genius" as. Certainly, "genius" needn't pertain to the T/F dimension, or to T functions, necessarily: it's a concept that has variable interpretations, some of which I'd say are decidedly subjective, such that tethering it to any MBTI dimension would seem foolhardy.


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Genius comes from latin word "gigno" which translates as "to beget", meaning that there's a notion of creation in genius. It also comes from the word "ingenium" (read "in" and "geno") which signifies the innate qualities of something or someone, or the natural aptitudes of a human being. So, by opposition of what is acquired by technique or work, genius is innate.

There's also the mythological creature coming from ancient antique Rome, Kant makes a reference to it in §46 of _Critique of Judgment_, and which leads to the same conclusions regarding what is innate.

There are many conceptions of genius throughout philosophy:

For some (Plato for example), a genius was one because he was a merely a receptacle for divine inspiration.

To Kant the was a original being who didn't obey to the established rules of "good taste" (and indeed this line of thought was aligned with the Lumières, or Age of Enlightenment in english, which prefered rational explanations to mysticisms). I think Diderot's take on the subject explains it quite well:

_Taste is often separate from genius as taste is the work of study and time, it relies on the knowledge of a multitude of rules which are established or presumed to be and it allows for beautiful things which are conventional. For something to be beautiful according to the rules of taste, it also must be elegant, finished, refined without the appearance of being so; to be of genius , there are times when neglect is necessary, that it appears to be out of sorts, difficult to achieve, wild. The sublime and genius shine in Shakespeare as does lightening throughout a long night; Racine is always beautiful, Homer is full of genius and Virgil is elegant.

Rules and laws of taste will only be obstacles to genius ; it breaks them to steal from the sublime, the pathetic, and the great._

To Hegel, like Kant, there was also this notion of innate in genius, but the genius had to sharpen and improve his genius by work and technique. He made the difference between passive imagination and active imagination (fantasy? I'm not sure of the translation).

You should note also that a genius has also been often considered as a role model to follow and admire. Because of a moral dimension (think literal explanation with Socrate and his daimōn) or also because, according to Schopenhauer, a genius is an intermediary capable of communicating his vision, his esthetical experiences, by creating works of arts and therefore rendering it accessible to the non genius population.

As you were able to see with this very succint explanation there are many differences concerning the conception of genius, but what I think can be considered common to genius when reading what philosophers have to say on it are: greatness, extraordinary vision, and a paradox to remember which is that you cannot be considered or known to be a genius if you haven't created or produced something, there is no genius without masterpiece. You can also notice throughout history that there is a certain supernatural caracteristic attached to genius, with the divine of course, but it goes even beyond that. Think Paganini for example, who played the Violon so well and with so little effort that it was said he had made a deal with The Devil.

Also remenber that genius is always more or less valued in certain time periods. The 17th century's french Classicism in theather had very strict rules concernng the creation of plays, and completely ignored Shakespeare because of them. Meanwhile, 19th century's Romanticism was on the contrary honouring everything genius.

I think saying that genius is a matter of T/F, or rationality or logic, is awfully reductive.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

A genius is described usually as intelligent or creative. MBTI does not measure this, hopefully people know this.
Genius in this case meaning his song was creative and artful. 
I never really thought of Thinking as having anything to do with genius though. When I think of a "pure T type" I usually imagine a boring person, an honest person, a pedantic person. Nothing that really makes anyone want to say "what a genius!" More likely "what a nuisance!" 
The old idea of intellectualism, I usually see people tying it to the whole N vs S thing because people think that since they are Ns they are independent thinkers and specially intelligent or insightful, when everyone is just a person and it doesn't matter.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

In a semiotics sense, I understand genius as a high proficiency or skill in manipulating symbolic registers. Its creativity aligns with its ability to produce new signifiers or representations of things previously unconscious.


----------



## AdInfinitum (Oct 21, 2014)

I have always understood genius as someone able to shift perspectives, to let himself be the slave of thinking as in deliberately letting his mind fly away from his own feelings and find them again in the grasp of an idea. That is why I consider there are so many sides of genius that humanity is focused on this singular and universal idea of a prototyped genius when all these beautiful potentials of the mind are running freely from them as they are preoccupied achieving some standards they do not fully understand. Genius is everything ticking and you finding yourself in everything as a part of meaning. 

And regarding the N vs S barrier, that has never represented a dent in any shield of giftedness, they are just as genius, biased opinions ruin the perceptual and conceptual side of an issue. How you process information does not define your abilities in ascending towards new perspectives, shift the cube and it is a ship.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Genius is doing the impossible and making it look effortless. 

In other words, I think genius is largely a misnomer for the gap between Person A's abilities/work and Person B's perception of what Person A has invested into those abilities/work.

Talent surely exists as a predisposition, but I suspect that the key of talent is dogged motivation and obsession - the writer who can't stop creating stories in his head, the actor who can't stop playing, the theorist who can't stop fiddling with an idea. 

We tend to think that time investment is measured in visible effort, but not all effort is visible or easily communicable. I mean, look at all the great comic personalities, for example, who talk about how they were always on their feet with wit growing up, or were the class clown, or spent evenings in an attic doing pretend radio broadcasts. 

We often don't see this stuff unless it's explicitly shared.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

I hope genius is totally unrelated to both logic and rationalism. Because both of those are about thinking with regard to established norms and what is known, rather than the possibilities of what is unknown. My experience of genius is that it not only pushes the envelope of credibility but is so far outside of that, that's what makes it genius. Logic and rationalism are over-rated because both are about thinking inside the box, and creativity gets nowhere with that.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> The old idea of intellectualism, I usually see people tying it to the whole N vs S thing because people think that since they are Ns they are independent thinkers and specially intelligent or insightful, when everyone is just a person and it doesn't matter.


If we go back to the roots of intellectuals, it was the appropriate occupation for a man of independant wealth. I mean what else do you do when you're fortune is made, other people run your estates and all you have to do is be a figurehead? You sit around and mentally masturbate, occassionally publishing your thoughts as if they mean something. Publishing was vanity press for the wealthy, and in fact, many of the great intellectuals of our time were self-funded experts.


----------



## Ik3 (Mar 22, 2015)

In my opinion, performing an advanced or intricate task/calculation is mainly a result of training, repetition, and practice. Physicists, Mathematicians, Chemists, and the like are experts in their fields, but I hesitate to label their work genius. 

I think true genius, like in the case of Clapton's "Layla" comes from a burning inspiration that takes hold of you like a feverish madness. Your only real option is to express it in whatever form you are able to. Sometimes this form is art or music, sometimes it is advanced theories and hypotheses. 

I'll always be a believer that genius is the truest expression of passion.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Ik3 said:


> In my opinion, performing an advanced or intricate task/calculation is mainly a result of training, repetition, and practice. Physicists, Mathematicians, Chemists, and the like are experts in their fields, but I hesitate to label their work genius.


This.

I always scoffed at the "educated=genius" notion. Not so. You could take a person of an average intelligence and have them study for hours on end until a subject is drilled in their head. Better yet, have them study independently, so they can learn based on their own cognition, not a cognition you designed for them. They'll come out looking like a genius.

Objectively, a genius is someone with an IQ of 132+, which is measured by how quickly someone processes and retains new material (this is a no brainer to those familiar w/ the system). Subjectively, there's no right or wrong answer. To me, a genius is someone who learns and discovers independently. What was the world before science? Intelligent people made discoveries, leading to greater things. They didn't need someone to teach them because science, at that time, was undiscovered, yet always existing. People who discover the unknown, on their own, or defy systems or create theories independently, are brilliant as hell.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Ik3 said:


> In my opinion, performing an advanced or intricate task/calculation is mainly a result of training, repetition, and practice. Physicists, Mathematicians, Chemists, and the like are experts in their fields, but I hesitate to label their work genius.
> 
> I think true genius, like in the case of Clapton's "Layla" comes from a burning inspiration that takes hold of you like a feverish madness. Your only real option is to express it in whatever form you are able to. Sometimes this form is art or music, sometimes it is advanced theories and hypotheses.
> 
> I'll always be a believer that genius is the truest expression of passion.


I don't consider it "genius" but I consider it to be using one's brain for problem solving which is pretty nice by itself anyway.
It could be genius in someone's opinion such as E=mc^2 which the equation was so simple but spoke volumes.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Layla is not a work of Genius and Clapton is not an artistic genius, though I like a lot of his work. I won't allow my personal beliefs to get in the way of objective truth.


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

> In a semiotics sense, I understand genius as a high proficiency or skill in manipulating symbolic registers. Its creativity aligns with its *ability to produce new signifiers or representations of things previously unconscious*.





> I hope *genius is totally unrelated to both logic and rationalism. Because both of those are about thinking with regard to established norms and what is known, rather than the possibilities of what is unknown. My experience of genius is that it not only pushes the envelope of credibility but is so far outside of that, * that's what makes it genius. *Logic and rationalism are over-rated because both are about thinking inside the box*, and creativity gets nowhere with that.


You're both so on the money.

Genius is translating what was previously unconscious into consciousness. Carl Jung was a genius. Genius is often ridiculed because people argue against it based on established rules, while a genius tries think outside of those rules.

Jung never wanted to present his theories to the masses because he was already ridiculed by his contemporaries who were intelligent. Only 50+ years later are the masses partially accepting his ideas, but still don't grasp them and many call it akin to horoscopes. Genius is often before his time.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Genius necessarily integrates a lot of data from various fields or wide ranging within a field that do not seem necessarily connected. Often this means dealing with information that seems to point in "contradictory" directions. This is why it often appears non-rational especially to outsiders though eventually it is often formalized by the more rationally inclined. A great example is Feynman and his diagrams that weren't fully understood until 3 or 4 decades after he first came up with them. Also this video is related:


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

Jung said an exchange of ideas begins with reason.
Then the ideas are simplified and they become empty, but people continue to chant them based on an emotional surge.

Emotions develop a bad name because of this trend.

For example, Obama presented an idea of changing the system. People allowed their emotions to overtake reason and chanted "Change" without any recollection of what it stood for. 


People do it with science too. Certain theories were results of being open minded. Now people cling to them to defend their view of the world. Close minded and guided by emotion. But since science is logical, the see their views as logical and reasonable instead of emotional. 

The definitions of Reason and emotion get flipped


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Clapton was not a genius. He was very skilled in what they did, but what he did was still very much within the boundaries of what was happening at the time. Clapton was a pop songwriter who was decent at guitar. If he was a genius, than Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, and Lady Gaga are all geniuses as well. I do not agree with that, they are popular musicians but they do nothing that changes music for the rest of time.

Zhu Zaiyu was a genius, he was the man who mathematically created the equal temperament system, which FOREVER changed music. Equal temperament is still the standard that music is written in.
Schoenberg was a genius. He created the twelve tone technique, which was a revolutionary way to create music that had no tonal center based in the equal temperament system.
Pollock was a genius, he was the man who put forth the idea that art didn't need to about about anything. He pretty much created abstract art.
Einstein was a genius, I don't need to explain how the theory of relativity changed everything. The man's name is synonymous with genius!
Grace Hopper was a genius, she created the first compiler, which allows people to code in high level languages.

Were these people rational and logical? Absolutely, without a doubt. Where they creative? Without a doubt. A genius requires both logic _and _creativity. 
It also can't be as simple as "An IQ above 132" (Though I guarantee all of them had IQ's >150) as many people have IQ's that high and they are not genius's.

A genius needs to do something that changes the world, and their field, for the rest of time.


----------



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

well we still don't know for sure about stuff like these........ like what determines an individual's intelligence ( ability to think logically and critically very fast)

ability to understand complicated things fast.

nature vs nurture.

the debate has been going on a long long time..

imo the INT's tend the be the smartest.

but that's just me


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

the401 said:


> well we still don't know for sure about stuff like these........ like what determines an individual's intelligence ( ability to think logically and critically very fast)
> 
> ability to understand complicated things fast.
> 
> ...


Why would INTx's be the smartest? I don't think that mbti types have anything to do with intelligence.


----------



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

Cesspool said:


> Why would INTx's be the smartest? I don't think that mbti types have anything to do with intelligence.


well it's just a theory based on my my personal viewpoint on this topic.

although i don't know how to explain it (most INFP's tend to hate complicated things such as data)

it makes sense that the INTx's is very rare and that it's dom is Ni and Ti. i mean it must be like that for a reason. you don't see genius everyday.... ( yes i know INFJ's are very rare too)

also from a nurture standpoint it makes sense that an INTx would become the smartest because they crave activities that would make them more intelligent.

there is also a thing about how Judging types are the best in things like analyzing. Judging types are the fast ones. 

If you ever go into the Professional Gaming community i GUARANTEE you that the top players will be a judging type. 

now i understands how you as an INTP might not understand my theory/viewpoint since INTP's only understand and accept ideas if they are backed up by sufficient logical evidence.

but i definitely think there is an correlation between MBTI types and intelligence/ aptitude for certain things .

see if this video helps.






anyways in the end this is just my opinion and i know it doesn't have sufficient logic to back it up but it's an idea that i myself thinks it's on the right track.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Cesspool said:


> Why would INTx's be the smartest? I don't think that mbti types have anything to do with intelligence.


You're the last person here I'd expect to say something like that.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

ConspiracyTheory said:


> Then the ideas are simplified and they become empty, but people continue to chant them based on an emotional surge.


What exactly causes the ideas to simplify? By turning them conscious, or is that the translation of the subconscious is usually non-comprehensible to mainstream audiences, leading to a downgrade or dumbing down of the original transcript?


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

hoopla said:


> What exactly causes the ideas to simplify? By turning them conscious, or is that the translation of the subconscious is usually non-comprehensible to mainstream audiences, leading to a downgrade or dumbing down of the original transcript?


I think it's some deep-set fear in their psyche, and it does lead to a dumbing down. Because they change the idea into a rule. They make it into a rule that they want to apply to everyone and everything, and that's when it starts to fall apart because there are always going to be individual circumstances where that rule doesn't apply. For some reason people are afraid to look at those circumstances.

Like in healthcare a lot of nurses don't like how doctors now are required to write orders stating "If pain level is 1-5 then give 1 Percocet. If pain level is between 6-10 then give 2 Percocet" and the law literally won't let pharmacy fill the script in the hospital anymore of they doctor forgets to write the pain level numbers. 

People want to automate everything to make it standard and robotic to prevent mistakes, but they are deleting the human critical thinking abikity that humans are capabale of. Nurses can make that decision themselves, they don't need to be robotic. If the patient states their pain is a 4, but they are crying the nurse knows to give them 2 Percocet, but now they aren't allowed.

But because of some fear of failure or errors, people want to automate everything.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> You're the last person here I'd expect to say something like that.


I'm unpredictable, babygirl.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

ConspiracyTheory said:


> I think it's some deep-set fear in their psyche, and it does lead to a dumbing down. Because they change the idea into a rule. They make it into a rule that they want to apply to everyone and everything, and that's when it starts to fall apart because there are always going to be individual circumstances where that rule doesn't apply. For some reason people are afraid to look at those circumstances.
> 
> Like in healthcare a lot of nurses don't like how doctors now are required to write orders stating "If pain level is 1-5 then give 1 Percocet. If pain level is between 6-10 then give 2 Percocet" and the law literally won't let pharmacy fill the script in the hospital anymore of they doctor forgets to write the pain level numbers.
> 
> ...


So you're saying genius is stunted when people don't ruminate their thoughts/ideas and rather execute them instead? 

I could see how that's fear related. It's like people fear risk or danger on some level, especially in matters of public concerns. They want things to be steady, organized, perfected for efficiency. Fear of mistakes is exactly right; mistakes are difficult to deal with, and upset the public. When one holds a public concern, they're going to find execution to be a much quicker solution, easing their fear before it turns ugly, even if the problem solving process is exaggerated. Quick public decisions can often be a cover or persona, but it's understandable given the pressure connected to their concerns. It does stifle effective solutions though, which is why we have the rare genius who breaks against the mold by thinking before acting. I wish we could find a way to make it suitable for people to think before they act in all situations, but currently that doesn't always work, especially in politics.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I find people tend to overrate classic rock songs a little, Layla being one example of such...
> 
> But I think the obvious point here is that it all depends on what you define "genius" as. Certainly, "genius" needn't pertain to the T/F dimension, or to T functions, necessarily: it's a concept that has variable interpretations, some of which I'd say are decidedly subjective, such that tethering it to any MBTI dimension would seem foolhardy.


Do you know anything about music? Because unless you are a classical guitarist or a otherwise trained musician, I don't think you have the authority to say that. A lot of "classical" music was considered frivolous and emotional in its time, sinful and popular with sensual people. Not all, but yeah, I'm pretty sure Layla actually is a work of genius.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Cesspool said:


> Layla is not a work of Genius and Clapton is not an artistic genius, though I like a lot of his work. I won't allow my personal beliefs to get in the way of objective truth.


Why isn't he? Do artistic geniuses no longer exist?

I pretty much think everyone in modern society is delusional despite all the information at their fingertips, a lot of classical literature was once considered dangerous and excitable romance for young girls. A work of genius is something so original and outstanding in its field you can say it stands apart from the average attempts. Anyone who creates a subgenre incidentally is also a genius. Who created New Wave? Thomas Dolby? The Talking Heads?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Cesspool said:


> Clapton was not a genius. He was very skilled in what they did, but what he did was still very much within the boundaries of what was happening at the time. Clapton was a pop songwriter who was decent at guitar. If he was a genius, than Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, and Lady Gaga are all geniuses as well. I do not agree with that, they are popular musicians but they do nothing that changes music for the rest of time.
> 
> Zhu Zaiyu was a genius, he was the man who mathematically created the equal temperament system, which FOREVER changed music. Equal temperament is still the standard that music is written in.
> Schoenberg was a genius. He created the twelve tone technique, which was a revolutionary way to create music that had no tonal center based in the equal temperament system.
> ...


I'm pretty sure you don't know anything about music now. Layla is much more musically complex than anything by Katy Perry or Justin Bieber. It would be more on par with someone like Bjork.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

hoopla said:


> This.
> 
> I always scoffed at the "educated=genius" notion. Not so. You could take a person of an average intelligence and have them study for hours on end until a subject is drilled in their head. Better yet, have them study independently, so they can learn based on their own cognition, not a cognition you designed for them. They'll come out looking like a genius.
> 
> Objectively, a genius is someone with an IQ of 132+, which is measured by how quickly someone processes and retains new material (this is a no brainer to those familiar w/ the system). Subjectively, there's no right or wrong answer. To me, a genius is someone who learns and discovers independently. What was the world before science? Intelligent people made discoveries, leading to greater things. They didn't need someone to teach them because science, at that time, was undiscovered, yet always existing. People who discover the unknown, on their own, or defy systems or create theories independently, are brilliant as hell.


I thanked your post because I agree that formal education doesn't equal genius. However, IQ only measures one type of intelligence and therefore isn't as objective as INTJs like to imagine it is...Einstein was actually considered retarded at one point in his life.


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

hoopla said:


> So you're saying genius is stunted when people don't ruminate their thoughts/ideas and rather execute them instead?
> 
> I could see how that's fear related. It's like people fear risk or danger on some level, especially in matters of public concerns. They want things to be steady, organized, perfected for efficiency. Fear of mistakes is exactly right; mistakes are difficult to deal with, and upset the public. When one holds a public concern, they're going to find execution to be a much quicker solution, easing their fear before it turns ugly, even if the problem solving process is exaggerated. Quick public decisions can often be a cover or persona, but it's understandable given the pressure connected to their concerns. It does stifle effective solutions though, which is why we have the rare genius who breaks against the mold by thinking before acting. I wish we could find a way to make it suitable for people to think before they act in all situations, but currently that doesn't always work, especially in politics.


Yea. Carl Jung said it happens because rationality is inconsistent and not one of mankind's fine points.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Cesspool said:


> Clapton was not a genius. He was very skilled in what they did, but what he did was still very much within the boundaries of what was happening at the time. Clapton was a pop songwriter who was decent at guitar. If he was a genius, than Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, and Lady Gaga are all geniuses as well. I do not agree with that, they are popular musicians but they do nothing that changes music for the rest of time.
> 
> Zhu Zaiyu was a genius, he was the man who mathematically created the equal temperament system, which FOREVER changed music. Equal temperament is still the standard that music is written in.
> Schoenberg was a genius. He created the twelve tone technique, which was a revolutionary way to create music that had no tonal center based in the equal temperament system.
> ...


Albert Einstein was dyslexic and autistic, he couldn't even read until he was eight years old. He was DISABLED. It seems to be a product of an above average intellect with an unusual brain structure with nothing else to occupy it focused into a particular area because a certain freedom was granted by the disability. 

Bobby Fischer is often scoffed at as a monomaniac who was simply the product again of disability, bizarre obsession and focus, combined with above average intelligence. 

Many artists are also considered mentally ill, or had rather unstructured times in their life with the freedom to think for themselves. 

Did the Mona Lisa change art for all time or is it simply a work of genius that has stood the test of time via originality, skill and complexity?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Ik3 said:


> In my opinion, performing an advanced or intricate task/calculation is mainly a result of training, repetition, and practice. Physicists, Mathematicians, Chemists, and the like are experts in their fields, but I hesitate to label their work genius.
> 
> I think true genius, like in the case of Clapton's "Layla" comes from a burning inspiration that takes hold of you like a feverish madness. Your only real option is to express it in whatever form you are able to. Sometimes this form is art or music, sometimes it is advanced theories and hypotheses.
> 
> I'll always be a believer that genius is the truest expression of passion.


I definitely think there are different types of genius. A high level of skill would have to be combined with burning passion that seems a force of its own, in an artist.

In a scientist or mathematician, it's generally the ability to focus with a high level of skill in that area, but also usually to bring a new idea to the field. This seems to acompany madness or disability as much in the rational as the artistic.

In terms of the art world it can be a singular work the artist or musician leaves behind. You don't have to change the entire field, you leave behind that one unspeakably powerful. ..thing. 

In any field, complexity is just as much of an issue as new ideas. Punk was a ground breaking new idea, to express rage in popular music, but New Wave is actually more musically complex, while both had a lasting effect on popular music on general.

I just entertain the idea it's much more subjective than some people allow, yet still recognizable to anyone who is open minded and avoiding intellectual dishonesty. I think saying popular music never produces genius is intellectual dishonesty, pedantic. 

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

StunnedFox said:


> *I find people tend to overrate classic rock songs a little, Layla being one example of such...*
> 
> But I think the obvious point here is that it all depends on what you define "genius" as. Certainly, "genius" needn't pertain to the T/F dimension, or to T functions, necessarily: it's a concept that has variable interpretations, some of which I'd say are decidedly subjective, such that tethering it to any MBTI dimension would seem foolhardy.


this


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> Do you know anything about music? Because unless you are a classical guitarist or a otherwise trained musician, I don't think you have the authority to say that. A lot of "classical" music was considered frivolous and emotional in its time, sinful and popular with sensual people. Not all, but yeah, I'm pretty sure Layla actually is a work of genius.


"Don't have the authority"? The idea that one needs an authority to claim that some songs are over-rated is ludicrous, as is the idea that whether I'm a trained musician or not is relevant to this discussion. Definition is key to a discussion like this, but I'm inclined to think that "genius" is too subjective a term, especially when applied to a field as subjective as the quality of works of art. Struggling to see what relevance the comment about contemporary criticism of classical music has to this...


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> "Don't have the authority"? The idea that one needs an authority to claim that some songs are over-rated is ludicrous, as is the idea that whether I'm a trained musician or not is relevant to this discussion. Definition is key to a discussion like this, but I'm inclined to think that "genius" is too subjective a term, especially when applied to a field as subjective as the quality of works of art. Struggling to see what relevance the comment about contemporary criticism of classical music has to this...


So you don't know much about music and just don't have a taste for what we label classic rock. Eric Clapton is considered in the music world to be a genius, and Layla is a masterpiece. Thanks for your pointless interjection.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> So you don't know much about music and just don't have a taste for what we label classic rock. Eric Clapton is considered in the music world to be a genius, and Layla is a masterpiece. Thanks for your pointless interjection.


I said it's a subjective matter; you respond by saying I don't know much about music (on what basis?), and claiming that I dislike the genre of "classic rock" (again, on what basis?). Surely I don't have to stress the subjectivity of the question again? Tell me, in what sense do you find my knowledge of music lacking? 

Why is the opinion of the "music world" relevant here? Surely the quality of pieces of music, and the genius of particular artists, is independent of what others think of it: if Eric Clapton _is_ a genius, he would remain one even if the "music world" were to do an about-face and decide he in fact is not one? Continuing to say that "Layla is a masterpiece" is no argument.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I said it's a subjective matter; you respond by saying I don't know much about music (on what basis?), and claiming that I dislike the genre of "classic rock" (again, on what basis?). Surely I don't have to stress the subjectivity of the question again? Tell me, in what sense do you find my knowledge of music lacking?
> 
> Why is the opinion of the "music world" relevant here? Surely the quality of pieces of music, and the genius of particular artists, is independent of what others think of it: if Eric Clapton _is_ a genius, he would remain one even if the "music world" were to do an about-face and decide he in fact is not one? Continuing to say that "Layla is a masterpiece" is no argument.


If you aren't trained in music you actually aren't able to hear what people trained in music can, complexity in music is more discernable to trained ears, music isn't so different than other subjects, it's math at its core. Being especially adept at either playing or judging music is both a matter of genetic natural talent and education like any other subject. Art isn't easy, I know, I have taken art and don't have the knack for it that my sister does, nor does it come close to my natural affinity for music and story telling. You are just born with certain abilities. People who are good at playing or hearing music even have certain kinds of shapes of ears.

To the untrained ear, Justin Bieber is no different than any other popular music, because the ear cannot detect complexity. Though Justin actually excels as a performer and dancer, if only slightly above average at music itself.

So that is how I know. Most musical people understand the complexity in guitar rock, though there are classically trained snobs who apparently imagine no music has been made since 1920, they are usually trained in music, but ignorant of popular music and biased towards an older style of music.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> If you aren't trained in music you actually aren't able to hear what people trained in music can, complexity in music is more discernable to trained ears, music isn't so different than other subjects, it's math at its core. Being especially adept at either playing or judging music is both a matter of genetic natural talent and education like any other subject. Art isn't easy, I know, I have taken art and don't have the knack for it that my sister does, nor does it come close to my natural affinity for music and story telling. You are just born with certain abilities. People who are good at playing or hearing music even have certain kinds of shapes of ears.
> 
> To the untrained ear, Justin Bieber is no different than any other popular music, because the ear cannot detect complexity. Though Justin actually excels as a performer and dancer, if only slightly above average at music itself.
> 
> So that is how I know. Most musical people understand the complexity in guitar rock, though there are classically trained snobs who apparently imagine no music has been made since 1920, they are usually trained in music, but ignorant of popular music and biased towards an older style of music.


Why is complexity relevant to the quality of the track, or the genius of it? Your argument seems entirely to rest on that assumption, but I can't see what justifies it.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> Why is complexity relevant to the quality of the track, or the genius of it? Your argument seems entirely to rest on that assumption, but I can't see what justifies it.


You seem to assume personal emotion is the only factor on what makes good art. This is important, of course, because the most pedantic and intellectually dishonest of people don't factor in sensitivity of personal or group emotional response. ...but you are missing training and technique. A person who actually has the ability to judge music in a capacity that is not purely personal can hear complexity. It's simply pedantic to think that emphasis on emotional response does not matter, but it's also ignorant to assume it's the ONLY criteria for judging art or music. Or literature for that matter.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> You seem to assume personal emotion is the only factor on what makes good art. This is important, of course, because the most pedantic and intellectually dishonest of people don't factor in sensitivity of personal or group emotional response. ...but you are missing training and technique. A person who actually has the ability to judge music in a capacity that is not purely personal can hear complexity. It's simply pedantic to think that emphasis on emotional response does not matter, but it's also ignorant to assume it's the ONLY criteria for judging art or music. Or literature for that matter.


I'm still not seeing how complexity bears any objective relevance on the question of what is a work of genius, or of what is a quality piece of art. Of course training and technique are relevant to the ability of the artist to perform a more complex piece of music, but in what way does that tie into notions of genius? In what way can music be objectively qualitatively evaluated, such that people exist who "have the ability to judge music in a capacity that is not purely personal"?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I'm still not seeing how complexity bears any objective relevance on the question of what is a work of genius, or of what is a quality piece of art. Of course training and technique are relevant to the ability of the artist to perform a more complex piece of music, but in what way does that tie into notions of genius? In what way can music be objectively qualitatively evaluated, such that people exist who "have the ability to judge music in a capacity that is not purely personal"?


I'm sorry that you lack either education in any of the arts (I'm minimally educated in every art form, including the ones I am not especially adept at)...but complexity is the metric for every single art form from abstract painting to Gothic literature to guitar rock. That's why I don't have proper ability to judge painting as a critic, aside from my personal choices, because I can't discern complexity. I have a slightly lazy near sighted eye, which is probably part of the problem. Nevertheless, I also don't have as much training as I do in music or writing, either. So both work against me, though I intellectually understand the need for complexity in fine art versus cave painting or eye sore commercials. 

I'm sorry you focused in some other intellectual area, and think art and music is only about how YOU feel, which is fine for your personal life. Please by all means ignore classic rock as you hate it. But you aren't anyone with the skill, education or ability to judge it in a broader manner.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this


But do you like Huey Lewis and the News?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> I'm sorry that you lack either education in any of the arts (I'm minimally educated in every art form, including the ones I am not especially adept at)...but complexity is the metric for every single art form from abstract painting to Gothic literature to guitar rock. That's why I don't have proper ability to judge painting as a critic, aside from my personal choices, because I can't discern complexity. I have a slightly lazy near sighted eye, which is probably part of the problem. Nevertheless, I also don't have as much training as I do in music or writing, either. So both work against me, though I intellectually understand the need for complexity in fine art versus cave painting or eye sore commercials.
> 
> I'm sorry you focused in some other intellectual area, and think art and music is only about how YOU feel, which is fine for your personal life. Please by all means ignore classic rock as you hate it. But you aren't anyone with the skill, education or ability to judge it in a broader manner.


Again with the assertion that I hate/dislike "classic rock": by all means ignore the last.fm link in my signature where a quarter of my top twelve most played artists have "classic rock" as one of their five most prominent tags, and instead assert conclusions you've reached apropos of no actual reason to believe as such...

You're continually failing to actually engage with the arguments I'm presenting. That the received wisdom in many of these fields is that complexity is important is irrelevant; deferring to these purported authorities gives no justification for _why_ complexity should be treated as relevant in qualitative evaluation. It is irrelevant how "educated" or "skilled" I am at determining that complexity, because that claim relies upon the assumption I'm questioning, which is that such qualities are even relevant ones to consider: whether I can discern complexity or not is irrelevant to the question of *why* said complexity matters.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> Again with the assertion that I hate/dislike "classic rock": by all means ignore the last.fm link in my signature where a quarter of my top twelve most played artists have "classic rock" as one of their five most prominent tags, and instead assert conclusions you've reached apropos of no actual reason to believe as such...
> 
> You're continually failing to actually engage with the arguments I'm presenting. That the received wisdom in many of these fields is that complexity is important is irrelevant; deferring to these purported authorities gives no justification for _why_ complexity should be treated as relevant in qualitative evaluation. It is irrelevant how "educated" or "skilled" I am at determining that complexity, because that claim relies upon the assumption I'm questioning, which is that such qualities are even relevant ones to consider: whether I can discern complexity or not is irrelevant to the question of *why* said complexity matters.


Because complexity is a trait of both training/skill and intelligence. Simplicity is a trait of the uninitiated and unintelligent. It's why many film snobs complain about compulsive use of CGI detracting away from ability to act or complexity of special effects which are not computer animated. Because other art forms, in all their complexity, are being slaughtered at the hands of CGI. It even applies to food and wine. I am starting to think you either have poorly developed sensing or you are playing a game, like devils advocate. I even think about this in terms of sex, when a man says why can't I just cum in three seconds, I think what an uneducated person who must be inexperienced sexually, or who is really lacking somehow in the sensitivity department, I mean men who understand sex want to prolong their own orgasm, considering the lady or not. Sex, like food, like wine, like art or music, is a development of complexity in the senses. 

Have you ever actually listened to Derek and the Dominos? I mean on a good sound system, or remastered in ear buds? Have you listened to Layla or Bell Bottom Blues? It makes Lady Gaga look functionally illiterate, though admittedly Poker Face is a completely danceable and slick hit, that is compulsively listenable. But Poker Face is a best selling paper back novel, and Layla is Goethe, while Mozart is Kant. Do you understand?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> Because complexity is a trait of both training/skill and intelligence. Simplicity is a trait of the uninitiated and unintelligent. It's why many film snobs complain about compulsive use of CGI detracting away from ability to act or complexity of special effects which are not computer animated. Because other art forms, in all their complexity, are being slaughtered at the hands of CGI. It even applies to food and wine. I am starting to think you either have poorly developed sensing or you are playing a game, like devils advocate. I even think about this in terms of sex, when a man says why can't I just cum in three seconds, I think what an uneducated person who must be inexperienced sexually, or who is really lacking somehow in the sensitivity department, I mean men who understand sex want to prolong their own orgasm, considering the lady or not. Sex, like food, like wine, like art or music, is a development of complexity in the senses.
> 
> Have you ever actually listened to Derek and the Dominos? I mean on a good sound system, or remastered in ear buds? Have you listened to Layla or Bell Bottom Blues? It makes Lady Gaga look functionally illiterate, though admittedly Poker Face is a completely danceable and slick hit, that is compulsively listenable. But Poker Face is a best selling paper back novel, and Layla is Goethe, while Mozart is Kant. Do you understand?


Do you seriously view all of these matters as objective questions? I honestly cannot fathom how. Becoming "educated" in any of these fields is only to adopt the same viewpoints as the supposed authorities on the matter; objectivity is not obtained through indoctrination. You haven't in any way substantiated the claim that complexity is a trait of intelligence, or simplicity a trait of the unintelligent. And your comparison of artists to authors hardly helps; what objectively makes a paper-back best-seller lesser as a work of writing than Goethe or Kant? All of the fields you've mentioned might have "experts" who make these claims, but none of them can give an objective justification for it.

I'm interested to know, also, why you think my stance on this issue indicates "poorly developed sensing". I know you've said that discerning complexity involves "a development of complexity in the senses", but my personal ability to discern complexity is irrelevant here; my position is that these are not objective matters, which is not a point about me personally whatsoever. So I'm intrigued to know how you've come to that conclusion.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> Do you seriously view all of these matters as objective questions? I honestly cannot fathom how. Becoming "educated" in any of these fields is only to adopt the same viewpoints as the supposed authorities on the matter; objectivity is not obtained through indoctrination. You haven't in any way substantiated the claim that complexity is a trait of intelligence, or simplicity a trait of the unintelligent. And your comparison of artists to authors hardly helps; what objectively makes a paper-back best-seller lesser as a work of writing than Goethe or Kant? All of the fields you've mentioned might have "experts" who make these claims, but none of them can give an objective justification for it.
> 
> I'm interested to know, also, why you think my stance on this issue indicates "poorly developed sensing". I know you've said that discerning complexity involves "a development of complexity in the senses", but my personal ability to discern complexity is irrelevant here; my position is that these are not objective matters, which is not a point about me personally whatsoever. So I'm intrigued to know how you've come to that conclusion.


Ugh the fact that you consistently don't just get it indicates poorly developed sensing. This is not about Te. I think as an Fi dom you are defensive because you think it's about Te..but look I sing, dance, play the piano, and attempted about four woodwinds. I despise music theory but am great at cataloging actual musical history. My dad played seven different musical instruments, and I went to concerts in utero. My first real bf is a musician, professional, has been since his teens, nearly 20 years....nothing I am saying is based in some pretentious Te academic blah blah blah. FAR FROM IT. 

I was hoping introduction of something that can be more N like like literature, or more relatable and human like food, wine, sex would spark your Si...but you really don't get it.

Yes there's a difference between the lustre of a Tiffany diamond versus a Wal Mart diamond that even my eyes can see. I'm sorry this offends your ethics of equality or opposition to Sensing as a cognitive function, but it's real.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> Ugh the fact that you consistently don't just get it indicates poorly developed sensing. This is not about Te. I think as an Fi dom you are defensive because you think it's about Te..but look I sing, dance, play the piano, and attempted about four woodwinds. I despise music theory but am great at cataloging actual musical history. My dad played seven different musical instruments, and I went to concerts in utero. My first real bf is a musician, professional, has been since his teens, nearly 20 years....nothing I am saying is based in some pretentious Te academic blah blah blah. FAR FROM IT.
> 
> I was hoping introduction of something that can be more N like like literature, or more relatable and human like food, wine, sex would spark your Si...but you really don't get it.
> 
> Yes there's a difference between the lustre of a Tiffany diamond versus a Wal Mart diamond that even my eyes can see. I'm sorry this offends your ethics of equality or opposition to Sensing as a cognitive function, but it's real.


I never mentioned Te, nor did I intend to suggest it; I rebutted your continual references to purported "authorities" and to being "educated" in particular fields because they were bad arguments, not because of any typological concern. The merit of your arguments has absolutely nothing to do with how much of your life is wrapped up in musical pursuits, so outlining those in an effort to show how "not Te" your arguments are is completely meaningless in this context. Much like the main argument you're making, I can't fathom where you're coming from as far as typology is concerned here.

This is not a matter of an "ethics of equality", nor of opposition to the S function, and I don't know why you continue to draw inferences that I never even remotely suggested. The _only_ thing I am doing is stressing the subjectivity of making claims like those you want to make; throughout this discussion, you've continually failed to address that claim. I never said that objective differences between these things don't exist - "Poker Face", "Layla" and "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" are clearly all different from each other in a number of respects - so I don't know why you're insinuating that I said there aren't "real" differences to be had; my issue is with the claim that some objective determination of the quality or genius of these things is possible, and it is that which you have so steadfastly not addressed.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I never mentioned Te, nor did I intend to suggest it; I rebutted your continual references to purported "authorities" and to being "educated" in particular fields because they were bad arguments, not because of any typological concern. The merit of your arguments has absolutely nothing to do with how much of your life is wrapped up in musical pursuits, so outlining those in an effort to show how "not Te" your arguments are is completely meaningless in this context. Much like the main argument you're making, I can't fathom where you're coming from as far as typology is concerned here.
> 
> This is not a matter of an "ethics of equality", nor of opposition to the S function, and I don't know why you continue to draw inferences that I never even remotely suggested. The _only_ thing I am doing is stressing the subjectivity of making claims like those you want to make; throughout this discussion, you've continually failed to address that claim. I never said that objective differences between these things don't exist - "Poker Face", "Layla" and "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" are clearly all different from each other in a number of respects - so I don't know why you're insinuating that I said there aren't "real" differences to be had; my issue is with the claim that some objective determination of the quality or genius of these things is possible, and it is that which you have so steadfastly not addressed.


Look dude, you clearly either cannot hear musical complexity (a real thing) or you do oppose Thinking and Sensing to such a degree that you actually discount education and knowledge, which is a predictably modern form of insanity. The internet is full of children with theories and opinions about subjects they have no facts about. Again, that's fine when it's just a personal opinion strictly applying to your own life, but judging and theorizing with a complete lack of education and skill is just idiotic. You might as well sit with a pile of sticks and say you can build a house as well as an architect. But hardcore, imbalanced intuitive types don't care about that. They apparently imagine houses build themselves by sheer will of imagination. 

Go listen to Green Grass and High Tides Forever by the Outlaws and tell me it's musically equal to Baby by Justin Bieber. Go argue the meaningless of existing with another N, I don't have any more patience for this retarded conversation.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

@StunnedFox

Speaking of architecture, though we may say a mud hut is every bit as functional as the palace at Versailles, and that subjectively a person could suggest where they prefer to live and what they personally find more beautiful or pleasing to themselves, and could even go on relationally about usage of resources, Etc. ...the fact is someone closer to simple animal builds a mud hut (though they may be a genius hunter or story teller!) ...while someone closer to genius builds the complexity of the palace at Versailles. Music and art are no different than houses or math. That's the last I have to say to you.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> Look dude, you clearly either cannot hear musical complexity (a real thing) or you do oppose Thinking and Sensing to such a degree that you actually discount education and knowledge, which is a predictably modern form of insanity. The internet is full of children with theories and opinions about subjects they have no facts about. Again, that's fine when it's just a personal opinion strictly applying to your own life, but judging and theorizing with a complete lack of education and skill is just idiotic. You might as well sit with a pile of sticks and say you can build a house as well as an architect. But hardcore, imbalanced intuitive types don't care about that. They apparently imagine houses build themselves by sheer will of imagination.
> 
> Go listen to Green Grass and High Tides Forever by the Outlaws and tell me it's musically equal to Baby by Justin Bieber. Go argue the meaningless of existing with another N, I don't have any more patience for this retarded conversation.


Once _again_, you're applying typological ideas in a very odd fashion that I would say suggests your take on typology is awry. I am decidedly _not_ disavowing education and knowledge, so that's another failure on your part to comprehend a fairly straightforward claim of mine, which was that being "educated" about what makes a good film doesn't tell me whether such an evaluation can be objectively made. And yet again, nothing in this post actually addresses the single argument that I've presented, instead drawing continual inferences about me personally (from my supposed hatred of classic rock to my supposed opposition to thinking and sensing preferences). This is nothing to do with "hardcore, imbalanced intuitive types", this is a straightforward question - how can genius/quality be objectively assessed? - that you have steadfastly refused to answer. It may help to read what I write sometime; perhaps then an actual discussion can be had between us, one that doesn't involve you consistently misrepresenting what it is that I'm claiming.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

@Thalassa

I take umbrage when you say I don't know music. I've been classically trained in violin since I was 6, and I've been playing the guitar since I was 10. I know (and love) music theory, and I have a very good ear. I enjoy the song Layla, I like it a lot, but it has not changed music at all. It's just a good song. That can't be all it takes to be a genius. Can Clapton be considered a virtuoso? Absolutely, but experience and virtuosity are not synonymous with genius. 

Using your own metaphor, Layla would be the mud hut. It's sturdy, and it is catchy, but it's no Versailles.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> I thanked your post because I agree that formal education doesn't equal genius. However, IQ only measures one type of intelligence and therefore isn't as objective as INTJs like to imagine it is...Einstein was actually considered retarded at one point in his life.


Good point that IQ is not an objective viewpoint. Perhaps subjective is a better term. Thinking back, idk why I said that, as I take IQ with a grain of salt in most circumstances.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Cesspool said:


> @Thalassa
> 
> I take umbrage when you say I don't know music. I've been classically trained in violin since I was 6, and I've been playing the guitar since I was 10. I know (and love) music theory, and I have a very good ear. I enjoy the song Layla, I like it a lot, but it has not changed music at all. It's just a good song. That can't be all it takes to be a genius. Can Clapton be considered a virtuoso? Absolutely, but experience and virtuosity are not synonymous with genius.
> 
> Using your own metaphor, Layla would be the mud hut. It's sturdy, and it is catchy, but it's no Versailles.



No Layla isn't a mud hut. Cotton Eye Joe by Rednex is a mud hut, catchy, popular in its day, but no lasting or widespread cultural value.

In my post to the other guy earlier, I said there were two types of people who hate on popular music, people who just don't understand music...the other type being you, the classical snob. To an ear trained to things like rock and electronic, much of classical sounds like elevator music. 

If what you are saying had any basis in musical reality, Clapton would not be widely recognized as a genius, and he is. 

There are people who can recognize the level of complexity in new wave versus punk, who don't even consciously realize they're doing it, but it is considered musically true. From the way you described Layla, you can't hear complexity in popular music because you are not trained towards it, you are biased towards classical. Your comparison of Layla to Katy Perry or Justin Bieber was absurd, especially since articles have been widely published about the increasing simplicity and loudness in pop, that it's not just the imagination of people who can recognize complexity in popular music.


----------

