/lit/ - Literature

Status: DEBUNKED

Sam: I'll just put that out there as an example of something someone would never want to spend a lot of time trying to justify this world view by reference to stories, ancient or otherwise.

Jordan: I mean, yeah. Well, there's actually a technical solution to the problem you're posing. I mean, part of the problem is how do you know if what you're looking at is a genuine thing or an artifact of your imagination, and, you know that Paul Neal and, and his, his, uh, his colleague Col-, Cronback solved this back in the 1950's with a very solid piece of methodological work that every psychologist either does or should know about. They were the inventors of the multi-trade, multi-method construct validation process, which is a pretty, uh, awful jumble of words, but basically, it means something like, to specify whether or not something exists you have to use multiple methods to detect it and their reports should co-vary positively. And so, of course, we do exactly that with our five senses. Just because you can see something doesn't mean it's there, but if you can see it and hear it, well, you're a little bit more certain...

>>9814612
>Empirical evidence basically goes against every claim made by Abrahamic religions

dude it's a religious truth not an empirical truth lmao

mfw I get money from plebs which helps me top the dominance hierarchy

The question what constitutes genius should be the question what makes people inclined to give a heck about brainy stuff to the degree that they reach a genius level of brain, not whether they eventually succeed and become "confirmed geniuses" (via their contributions or basically any kind of proofs). The former is what constitutes genius while the latter is the external confirmation.
An "anonymous genius" could always die young or never publish etc. That person would still be a genius in the sense of possessing genius thoughts or skill which is the actual stuff of a genius.
This urge on the other hand to show and tell and share and care is not a logical conclusion to having genius level thoughts. It is the urge of the social monkey in the genius and not the genius per se.
On that note I have never heard of a genius who wanted to be a genius. Such is wishful thinking of status-obsessed brainlets .

Anyways going a step deeper than that, since a genius could also stop giving a heck about this brainy stuff at some point, his former genius would not be invalidated but he would cease being it despite the possibility clearly existing, as far as I'm concerned.

So what you actually have to ask is what are the conditions of possibility of genius.

What makes it so geniuses develop this (near-)existential degree of investment in the grand, abstract questions and developing the solutions to them etc.?
What makes one give a heck about that instead of normie stuff like girls and material wealth?

There are innumerable possible yet unnecessary preconditions. Here are two: Being autistic and a 2/10 and being at peace with that instead of lurking incel/mgtow forums. Is that luck?

Is it luck to have a mentor growing up who just happens to push all the right buttons in your limbic system so you will to engage with the material instinctively?

Or is it luck to grow spiteful of him, so it feeds your desire to outdo him?

What if that drive manifests as violence or erotic feelings for your mentor instead and you just end up becoming a trap obsessed with cock?

Is that luck?

I think there's nothing lucky about geniuses. It's a stupid mode of existence and authentic geniuses do not live happy lives.

Now being a pseud..