DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Phanny, v. 3, issue 2, June 1944

Transcribe
Translate

Phanny, v. 3, issue 2, June 1944

Page 2

2

PHANNY

MORE ON GENIUS
(Pun Intended)

There is an old saying, "A cat may look at a king." That is my justification for writing on the subject of "Genius;" none of the definitions of this word apply to me.

The response to the Query, "Genius and Super-Man" was very pleasing. I scarcely suspected such thorough and thought-provoking comments. Some of these were, in fact, more in the nature of articles, exceeding the original Query in length. To be sure, few of the questions were answered with finality; they were not intended to be that kind of questions, and the subject doesn't permit such treatment, anyway.

Widner, for example, says that we could recognize Super-Man, "....unless he hid his light under a hogshead. He'd probably have abilities our smartest couldn't touch, and those would be readily recognizable." Lowndes things such a man would be too smart to let us find him out. Probably they are talking about different "Super-Men," however; Art implies a mutation, while "Doc" sticks to the very intriguing concept of a "total genius," -- a person possessed of highly specialized ability in many or all fields of endeavor, and still entirely human.

Ashley and Laney are mainly concerned with genius as defined in educational psychology; that is, general intelligence equivalent to some aribtrarily chosen level well above the average; say, an I. Q. of 150 or more. Stanley suggests that special non-logical motivations which impell a man to utilize his abilities to the maximum are more significant than intelligence, and Laney evidently concurs. Norm says, "The very definition of the intelligence quotient renders an expression like 'I. Q. of 700' meaningless." Perhaps; but isn't it conceivable that a child of two might perform purely mental tasks on the fourteen-year-old level?
Speer, true to his insistence upon semantic perfection, inquires whether a being whose powers we can not detect may be said to exist. That reminds me of the two well-known definitions of sound; the classical one which goes, "Sound is that which is capable of detection by the organs of hearing," (thus implying that there can be no soundwhere there is no ear to hear it) and the one current in physics, which is couched in terms of a longitudinal vibration within a conducting medium.

Such diversity was exactly what I hoped for; I was careful not to imply any limiting definition for that very reason. (Anyone who can't think of at least one more reason why I was so vague can go to the foot of the class.)

The matter of "loneliness on the intellectual plane" was considered at length only by Laney. The rest tended to dismiss the matter as a case of maladjustment, and not pertinent to the main problem. Some one said that a true genius tends to be a little better balanced than the average, "....unless his education has been mismanaged." I don't think there will be much disagreement with that statement. Except in the case of extreme neurotics, environmental factors play a major part in determining temperament and mental health, just as sanitation and related factors of environment largely determine physical health.

It is my opinion that this very matter of maladjustment is the one element in the whole discussion which can be considered of immediate concern, and the only one about which anything can be done at the present time. It is all very well to talk about a man working out his own destiny; but if he is placed in a hopelessly bad environment as a child, he may find that he is working with factors over which he has no control, and for which he knows no cure. There is very

Saving...

2 PHANNY MORE ON GENIUS (Pun Intended) There is an old saying, "A cat may look at a king." That is my justification for writing on the subject of "Genius;" none of the definitions of this word apply to me. The response to the Query, "Genius and Super-Man" was very pleasing. I scarcely suspected such thorough and thought-provoking comments. Some of these were, in fact, more in the nature of articles, exceeding the original Query in length. To be sure, few of the questions were answered with finality; they were not intended to be that kind of questions, and the subject doesn't permit such treatment, anyway. Widner, for example, says that we could recognize Super-Man, "....unless he hid his light under a hogshead. He'd probably have abilities our smartest couldn't touch, and those would be readily recognizable." Lowndes things such a man would be too smart to let us find him out. Probably they are talking about different "Super-Men," however; Art implies a mutation, while "Doc" sticks to the very intriguing concept of a "total genius," -- a person possessed of highly specialized ability in many or all fields of endeavor, and still entirely human. Ashley and Laney are mainly concerned with genius as defined in educational psychology; that is, general intelligence equivalent to some aribtrarily chosen level well above the average; say, an I. Q. of 150 or more. Stanley suggests that special non-logical motivations which impell a man to utilize his abilities to the maximum are more significant than intelligence, and Laney evidently concurs. Norm says, "The very definition of the intelligence quotient renders an expression like 'I. Q. of 700' meaningless." Perhaps; but isn't it conceivable that a child of two might perform purely mental tasks on the fourteen-year-old level? Speer, true to his insistence upon semantic perfection, inquires whether a being whose powers we can not detect may be said to exist. That reminds me of the two well-known definitions of sound; the classical one which goes, "Sound is that which is capable of detection by the organs of hearing," (thus implying that there can be no soundwhere there is no ear to hear it) and the one current in physics, which is couched in terms of a longitudinal vibration within a conducting medium. Such diversity was exactly what I hoped for; I was careful not to imply any limiting definition for that very reason. (Anyone who can't think of at least one more reason why I was so vague can go to the foot of the class.) The matter of "loneliness on the intellectual plane" was considered at length only by Laney. The rest tended to dismiss the matter as a case of maladjustment, and not pertinent to the main problem. Some one said that a true genius tends to be a little better balanced than the average, "....unless his education has been mismanaged." I don't think there will be much disagreement with that statement. Except in the case of extreme neurotics, environmental factors play a major part in determining temperament and mental health, just as sanitation and related factors of environment largely determine physical health. It is my opinion that this very matter of maladjustment is the one element in the whole discussion which can be considered of immediate concern, and the only one about which anything can be done at the present time. It is all very well to talk about a man working out his own destiny; but if he is placed in a hopelessly bad environment as a child, he may find that he is working with factors over which he has no control, and for which he knows no cure. There is very