Talk:Genius/Archive 2

Anyone mind if I change it back?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genius&diff=next&oldid=244192744 The person's talk page isn't very reassuring. Also, an IP pulled out this image. Biologicithician (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this worth adding to the external links section?
Request edit - Is the article, < Genius >, worth adding a link to? It is a closed knol (not publicly editable) that summarises research published in book form and academically reviewed (The Polgár method in particularly has been widely discussed in journals). The knol itself is open to review and has been scrutinised by the gifted & talented education coordinators from Genius/HighIQ societies. However, as I edited the knol, I can't add the link myself, as that would be WP:COI (Thanks to OhNo itsJamie for pointing this out.)--DouglasReay (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * and leave our article like crap? No!  I hope you will allow us to make our article more coherent like yours.  Just look at our first sentence... A genius is a person who successfully applies a previously unknown technique in the production of a work of art, science or calculation, or who masters and personalizes a known technique that's the worst definition I've ever heard.  I put your link in at the bottom, because it is valuable and you did a good job putting in citations and references.  Plus I request you do not allow the people who vandalize this page, to edit your knol. Biologicithician (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that parts of the article are lousy, but they need to be fixed. Whether an external link is sufficiently encyclopedic is a separate matter. My preference would be for articles that are less "off the top of the head"/"armchair philosophizing" and more like those written by a professional academic who relies heavily on findings and discussion that have been previously published. There's a bit of that here, but not nearly enough. I'd give it an "A" if one of my students wrote it, but it couldn't really be published as is in any psychology-related journal (the standard I'm familiar with). - Do c  t  orW  05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes a Genius
Couple things 1. How is someone that is a what I call a "Nature Genius", by that I mean someone who's has a naturally abnormally high learning ability different from someone that is a what I call a "Nurture Genius" who, through excessive and/or obsessive amounts of study and learning attains a similar level of knowledge?

2. This article gives me the impression that Genius is someone that has abnormally large amounts of info on one subject, and I believe that this is false. I believe that a genius can have such an amount of info on several subjects, all equal and all high.66.41.44.102 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't use the personal views of individual editors in writing its articles. If you want to include information, it must be published in a reliable source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm trying to get people that may have such sources to find evidence to either support or deny my view on the subject and answer my question.66.41.44.102 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Robert Langdon from see also section. --86.136.57.18 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup intent
Well this is quite an extraordinary discussion. Everyone seems concerned about whether they are to be considered a genius and promoted or considered stupid and denied their rights. If I were the chief social engineer of European society I never would have got started on such a damaging line of thought, which has in fact been instrumental in causing millions of premature deaths, as it is only a step from defining smart and stupid to tagging people stupid (oh excuse me, idiot and moron) to getting rid of all the stupid for the genetic health of the race. Are you stupid? Are you sure? Got any enemies in power? I know I'm smart but I don't know about any of you. That aside, we can go on re-debating this tricky question for as long as Wikipedia shall last. I want to clean this article up and get the tags off it. What that means is, stick to the main concepts as expressed by the main sources and present the mainstream views, questions and doubts in summary. This article is about the modern concept of genius as applied to individual people. If you have any serious objection to this intent and the scope of the article, present it. Stop me. Demand to see my references. The concept is a large and analogous one but it has other articles to cover its other senses, so I will be making sure we stick to the subject.Dave (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alludedto
I began a life story and asked for attention naturually not responded to. How could you? Well. Been trying to communicate a while now months I think even mentioning some 'crazy ideas naturually politely answered by Michael Jackson team (he can'nt handle all personally} but no way and impossible to even say anything. Events transpired and I just....David Australia mobile 0488795589  and love 'I'll be there'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.15.23 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mind, old boy? We are trying to do an encyclopedia article here, and this isn't too helpful.Dave (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical development of Intelligence testing
Referring to this edit: As Intelligence testing has its own article, is too much detail of its history—evidently with more to come—in the right place here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there again. I took a look at it. The first thing I noticed is that there is a difference of opinion concerning who invented the intelligence concept and how. Was it Stern or Binet? And, the other article does not mention Galton. The second thing I notice is that the other article is basically unsubstantiated. I started in with the citation requests but if I start checking things out in detail I am sure I will find many more. In other words, the other article represents editorial opinion or off-the-top memory. Bad idea. As I am using only creditable sources I have to assert the view I am currently presenting over that of the other article. If there turns out to be a disagreement of the sources then we need to say something like "so and so attributes the IQ concept to Stern, but so-and-so to Binet." Something like that - keep a balanced view. The third thing is, moonraker, you mistake my intent, naturally, because it isn't in there yet. I'm going to get on to genius in very short order. This section is about the development of the concept of genius. There is a minimal overlap. It was Galton who brought the idea into psychology, no doubt about that, but if you find another view, it should be brought in. There needs to be a link to the other article but I see nothing in the genius article so far that should not be there. When you put in a ref to a main page you often do give a brief summary or intro and that is all that is here. If the Binet material is wrong or debatable then the proper summary should be in - but first prove it; that is, find some sources that deal with the controversy if there is one. A mere vehement assertion by an editor is not enough, and the "note" on the assertion that Stern invented the concept is a pseudo-reference - there is no reference there, only another editorial opinion. So I would say, fix the other article first, outline the controversy there if there is one, and then we can see better what to do in genius. Next - the other article does not get into the history of the concept of intelligence and nether do I. I'm interested in the history of the concept of genius, but as genius today in psychology is defined in terms or intelligence testing there has to be something about intelligence there. There is some conceptual overlap but it seems unavoidable for comprehension. So here is what I suggest. Let me finish the few paragraphs I had in mind to do and then we can reevaluate. Meanwhile we need to provide the refs for the variant point of view in the other article and phrase that article in a more objective manner so it seems less like editorial petulence. Agreed? Thanks for your interest - this set of articles sure can use it as it seems to be ruled more by emotion than by reason. By the way, I can only work on this sporadically today so be patient.Dave (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Priority of articles
I see some editors are interested in restoring their personal opinions. Well. A few observations. First, this article needs a lot of work to make it cohere. I observe that there is no easy line of descent from the Roman concept, which was outlawed anyway. As the bottom half of the article indicates, different philosophers and psychologists have had their own modifications. That needs considerable work. It is worth doing, no doubt. It needs someone very persistent to make sure only referenced material gets in there and to expand the "history of ideas" aspect of it. Otherwise it is going back the dogs - I mean, stubborn teen-agers, people with axes to grind, systems people who equate knowledge to power (intead of vice versa)intellectual vandals and the like. That will decrease its effectiveness; i.e., it will be as before just a bunch of Wikipedia baloney, not even worth reading. The professionals will continue to sit back and roar with laughter. There is no more to be gained by that than scribbling on walls. Now, before this article can be effectively guided into something useful, the other article of the history of IQ has to be made accurate and effective. It takes priority, as genius today is a range of IQs to some degree. That is a large task also; it might be easier just to start over, but that is not the way Wikipedia works. And, and, I have seen some very bad articles turned into very good ones! That is what we want to do here. I say "we" because - you guessed it - I'm backing out. This cluster of articles is not on my list right now, I got in here from mythology and I am going back to that. I've satisfied myself that the moderns are not ancients in disguise. But, I hope I have pointed a finger - straighten out IQ first and then the types of IQ will fall into place. As for the disambig page from which I got in here - it can wait. Good luck to the rectifier of these articles whoever you may turn out to be.Dave (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Illustration
The illustration at the top is highly POV. It suggests that the primary definition of "genius" is "someone with an extremely high IQ", and that is just one point of view (mostly that of IQ fanatics). The objections against it are already stated later in the article. As I said, a genius is generally known by his extraordinary abilities and achievements, not by his IQ, and most people that have been regarded as geniuses have never been shown to have high IQ, nor have most people with unusually high IQ been known as "geniuses" outside of IQ circles. Sure, the IQ idolizers are probably the only ones who have tried to make a scientifically quantifiable concept of "genius", but this doesn't prove that their concept is the only meaningful one any more than the Intelligent Design people's attempts to scientifically prove God's existence mean that their writings should dominate the God article.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity and boredom, I typed in 'genius' and I see the Wiki entry, with a picture of the bell curve. I think most people will agree that intelligence is vague enough a concept, let alone genius. Although, the two have been monopolized (by whatever subset of the psychometric community, and likely for a 'higher (eugenicist) agenda'), to the extent that one should expect such nonsense scattered throughout literature. IQ proponents have long resorted to brainwashing strategies in an attempt (that has been widely successful) to delude the masses. And in more recent years, data from neuro-imaging, and experiments investigating Executive function and fluid intelligence, suggests that the 'law' of intellectual constancy has been violated. So the 'inherent assholes', can stop confusing the mental abilities of Richard Feynman, with their 6th grade English teachers.

Physiological & Genetical caracteristics of geniuses
What I really do not understand is that this article says nothing about the Physiological & Genetical caracteristics of geniuses. While I would think that genius has everything to do with those basics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here read Dean Keith Simonton's books?
I ask, because Dean Keith Simonton is one of the most prolific authors about genius, whether anyone here has read any of his articles or books. It would be good to source this article with more of Simonton's writings. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove Einstein Photo
Or just move it down and replace it. Albert Einstein is a person, not a symbol. Symbols are these letters I'm using to make words. A person is not a symbol. This is cliche. A single person can not possibly represent the scope of the term 'Genius'. Find something more suitable. Perhaps someone has a good idea. However, since genius is a relative concept, putting a picture of Einstein up is somewhat dangerous, as it implies too much. Einstein could also be a symbol of the atomic bomb, but that is just an opinion & it isn't even right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

THINK: MOSAIC
Or one of those crazy wiki trees you find on other wikis. Linking to other wikis that people consider broad topics of genius.(um?) Such as the blue box on this page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_edit_a_page or some other table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo
I disagree that he was a genius. His work and artwork were very lacking. I'm not sure what is considered exceptional about his intelligence.

3dec3 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Genius
Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Genius (adj. ingenious)!?
Not really sure how that crept on here but ingenious is not an adjectival form of genius. The words are probably as related to each other as are, for example "engineer" and "ingenious", probably less. Feel free to check a dictionary, but I doubt you'll find one that disagrees with me. EG. "The woman is ingenious," does not imply: "The woman is a genius," not even in the slightest. On the other hand, you could argue that the converse is true, namely that "The woman is a genius," implies "The woman is ingenious". But it also implies many other things like "The woman is clever", "The woman is exceptional" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.115.105 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotes need precise sources!
Tat is a bad habit indeed, to quote without precise reference, full source (e.g. Nietzsche). Even a student is expected to play by the rules of scholars. / In a publication of good repute, I would demand to quote a philosopher' s text in its original version ( because even the term and context of "translation" betrays confusion). How that is handled here, I do not know. -- 147.142.186.54 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses
I have just restored the deleted tag attached to this reference. The work seems to deal with, as the title suggests, three hundred individual cases and, indeed, many of their attainments as "scholars" are recorded. However I couldn't find the specific conclusion used in the article and it may be a synthesis, which isn't allowed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment
This is quite possibly the most completely off-base wikipedia entry I've ever seen. While the term "genius" may have any number of colloquial meanings, which would be fine to include here, it is technically defined as a person with an IQ of 160 or higher. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not somebody has applied a previously unused technique in a field. (Where on Earth did this come from?) An average-intelligence person could be a famous innovator, while a genius could sit around eating Cheetos all day and die in obscurity. They're completely different variables.71.115.9.77 (talk)

It's not true that genius can simply be defined as "a person with an IQ of 160 or higher". You need more than just high intelligence to be a genius. Geniuses tend to have high, but not the highest IQ's (140 is perhaps the minimum for a genius). Genius is also related to conditions such as autism and Asperger syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.16 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "genius" has been around hundreds of years before the iq test was even invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You will find the complete answer to this mystery on the disambig page Genius (disambiguation). There you will discover most of the entries are entertainers who are called geniuses. This whole article is mainly in support of those personalities; in other words, this article is a disguised form of the glim-glam, the flim-flam, the old free publicity game. You try to change it and they jump you, and that leads to even more publicity! So, at bottom, this whole article is a commercial site. Certain persons are not interested in fixing it, only in keeping the publicity. But it is a tough article to write about and the topic is in fact emotionally charged. We need to start with the English definitions from credible sources and get into the history of the concept. As for the entertainers, well, as long as Wikipedia documents the current scene, and they are persons of note, we can't get rid of them. What we can do is force them into the mold. Get back in place, entertainers, this is not your personal publicity stunt. I can see I will have to start taking a hand here; they have already started in on me. So, people, just keep at it with the criticism; let's force them into proper place here.Dave (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Genius" is introduced as a scholarly endeavor (or learning ability) but it lacks discussion skill or application of knowledge no matter how it is acquired; whether learned from others, self-taught, instinctive, or otherwise "born that way". Depth of knowledge (Einstein) versus Breadth of knowledge (DaVinci) only partly covers this. Also, one good idea does not necessarily make one a genius - there needs to be some sort of recognizable history of exceptional performance. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Intelligence or Genius
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I recall, some new editors have begun watching and working on this article, and I wonder if anyone has any further suggestions for the source list linked here. I'm thinking of adding some sources to this article. Simonton's publications (now listed as Further reading sources) would be excellent books to dig into to update the content of this article. Have a happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Estimated IQs of historical figures in preamble
This is my first contribution ever to Wikipedia so apologies if I get any of the customs wrong. Basically, I want to say I dislike the references in the introduction to Goethe and da Vinci having "estimated IQs" of 210 and 220 respectively. This has got to be both highly speculative and highly questionable. If we take as the definition of IQ the score on an intelligence test which is normalized to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, then we are talking about IQs more than 7 standard deviations above the mean, which statistically ought not to occur in the entire human population. In any case, a 1 in a billion IQ score is in no way a prerequisite to the polymath ability and amazing creativity of these men. Personally, I think that having these unsubstantiated claims in the introduction detracts from the credibility of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhd75 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right, it is highly questionable (and in my professional opinion, unlikely), so I shall remove these. This does not change the point of the article at all, but simply allows the reader to not be distracted with these potentially impossible I.Q. scores only a little way in. And also, should estimations be used in an encyclopedic article at all?
 * Polymath618 11:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * EDIT - actually, the estimations for Goethe and da Vinci were incorrect, as the Flynn Effect was not applied to them. The modern equivalent of Goethe's estimated I.Q. of 220 is actually about 190, so it isn't as high as we thought it was (although, of course, it is still exceptional).
 * Polymath618 11:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Flynn Effect has been demonstrated to be non-G related and to have begun reverting by now (again, of course, non-G related). Additionally, it has also been demonstrated to affect scores only up to about IQ 120 sd16. However, the estimates for historical geniuses do need correcting, but on different grounds. They were made in 1926 based on the ratio MA/CA. The entire Cox/Terman list should be converted to presently used deviation values. That gives top ranked Goethe an IQ of 179 sd16, almost 5 SD above the mean and nearly a 1 in 3 million rarity. The decrease is not linear. By the time you come into the low 150's ratio, they lose merely about 5 points to become mid-140's deviation. You can check this: StevanMD (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Estimated IQ scores are a load of bull and are the stuff of laymen "pop science". What definitive proof is there that being an exceptional musician or artist makes one a genius in areas that correspond with high IQ? I've seen no word on a significant correlation between creative ingenuity and IQ, and even if there was it is ridiculous to try to guess what a dead man would have scored on a test. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing Historiometry section
This section in not about genius and is only tangentially related to the topic of the article. I'll be removing it again. Per WP:BRD, seek consensus for inclusion of this unrelated material if you wish to add it back Miradre. aprock (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Historiometry has certainly quantitatively measured the impact of geniuses as well as what may contribute to their presence. As such it certainly deserves a section. Also, BRD does not mean that your version is somehow the default.Miradre (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It deserves a see also entry, which it has. If you want to include new content that has been reverted, you should seek consensus for the inclusion.  Seek away. aprock (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus. I added material which no one objected to for a long time. You removed it without consensus. Also, I will add references showing that geniuses is a central feature of the field.Miradre (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, your idiosyncratic interpretation of consensus brings levity to my day. Thank you. aprock (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy stating that your text is somehow the default? Also, have a look at the Historiometry article, I have added references showing that studying genius is a central feature of the field. Comments? Miradre (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not add any text. And there is already a see also in the article.  That should suffice here.  aprock (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy preference for a version with less text or the status quo. A scientific field about genius certainly deserves its own section in an article about genius.Miradre (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is clearly no consensus for inclusion right now. If you'd like to include the content, it might help to seek out a outside opinion WP:3O. aprock (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for exclusion either. To quote:" There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version." Miradre (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. aprock (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you agree that we should drop the talk of "consensus". Exactly what are your objections to including a section about a scientific field investigating genius in the genius article? Miradre (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The objection is that it's only tangentially related to Genius, hence a see also link suffices. I suppose an inline link in the Psychology section might be worthwhile. An entire section about an obscure and minor field of study is certainly not needed here. Again, you're welcome to see outside opinions. aprock (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously a field about genius is not tangentially related to the genius article. That it is obscure is your on POV. In regard to genius it is of course a major field. Do you really want to ask outside opinion on a question if a field about genius should have a section in the genius article? Miradre (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry miradre. My not responding your unproductive talk page comments is not an indication that the objection has been adequately addressed. I am again removing section as undue. aprock (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

IQ
Does your IQ determine if you are a genius or not? Or is it something else?
 * see Theory of multiple intelligencesMalomeat 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Malomeat

You're absolutely right. You don't qualify as a genius by practising a few IQ tests really hard and reading a lot of books with rare words (and leafing through the dictionary (even though yes, you would still have to be quite intelligent to get that score, but not a genius). As flawed and problematic as IQ is in the average population, to define anyone as having an "IQ over 140" as a real genius is nonsense. Euler was a genius, we all know that, but apparently we can't say it because it's POV. Well logically it is equally POV to label all these thousands and thousands of people genius. Should we remove it from the first paragraph? We could mention it elsewhere... And there is the mentioning of soccer geniuses... how is it fair to put them in and yet POV to mention others?? --- I don't disagree entirely, about IQ tests being unable to qualify people as geniuses, as people can practice things and work on solving IQ test-like problems and achieve a higher score that way, as with a modern ACT or SAT. However, to say that someone who can get over 140 with no practice is not one type of genius seems a bit off. Of course, recognized geniuses and those that most people in modern-day society will call geniuses (those that they know who are simply very intelligent) are completely different, as you must accomplish something to be recognized as a genius of the past, and there are many geniuses of the past and modern-day society that quite possibly could not get above a 140 on a modern IQ test. But as someone who has only taken an IQ test once, and had never practiced questions quite like those I saw on that test, and received a 172 simply from being able to pick the logical answer to most of them, an IQ test seems like a decent test of who or who is not one very specific type of genius. To say I am a genius of the arts would be ridiculous, as I am quite a horrible failure at writing brilliant pieces of literature and have never written a piece of music in my life. Just as well, to say that someone who received a 126 on a modern IQ test could never write a piece of music that could move Mozart to tears would also not necessarily be correct. And there are definitely not only geniuses of logic and artistry, but rather geniuses of hundreds of topics. Any specific topic that someone can imagine should have a group of people who excel beyond all others. I personally believe that saying someone who can score well over a 140 on their first try on an IQ test is a genius, and instead I claim that it is wrong to say that the ones who cannot accomplish this are not geniuses. ---


 * Depends on the notion of genius used. Genius with regards to intelligence? In this case IQ would probably currently be the best measure for genius (although in actuality there's much more to "intelligence" than can be inferred from an IQ test). Genius as expressed by creativity in the arts or music? I don't think IQ tests can effectively measure this. Depending on the notion of genius used, having a high IQ is not necessary to be a genius, and being a genius does not necessarily imply having a high IQ. Mozart is widely considered a genius in the field of music, but had he taken an IQ test, would he have scored very high? We don't know, and I don't think IQ is a significant factor in the criteria used in labeling someone a genius with regards to musical ability. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are professional sources on this subject and we should use those when editing Wikipedia articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this Fahrenheit or Celsius? You cannot discuss IQ without units. Percentile would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenif (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To put this in some kind of historical perspective, early Intelligence research used terms already in the language as classifiers for IQ ranges. This is mostly extinct these days. So, when a researcher in 1916 or 1942 or whenever uses a label of Genius for people with an IQ on a given test of over x number, they are also typically using labels like 'moron', 'imbecile', 'idiot' at the other end. But we know that such labels are not so useful because they mean different things outside of this more technical use. So, today you might see labels like 'normal', 'above average', 'mild intellectual disability', 'profound mental retardation'. These labels attempt to be more descriptive. But again, they are just shorthand for various ranges of scores on various IQ tests, and not necessarily a diagnosis. There's been a lot of research done on Intelligence and IQ, and it is one of the better understood areas of psychology. It is quite clear that a high IQ (even a very high IQ) score does not equate to what is popularly understood as genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Image of Nikola Tesla
As discussed above, the definitive twentieth century genius is Einstein and the repeated, partisan efforts to replace his image with that of Nikola Tesla, the proponent of neighbourhood broadcast power, is not appropriate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with that. Tesla is just not anywhere near as well known. There are a couple of other who could have been used like Shakespeare or Newton but Einstein is the main one people think of I believe. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Added again. The contributor reported for edit warring: see here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why images of both men can't be included. Certainly Edison is more notable in popular culture as an inventor, but it's pretty clear that both are highly regarded for their intellectual achievements. aprock (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Edison is not either Einstein or Tesla. What's the point of sticking in a gallery? One is quite good enough. Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct you are. For some strange reason, I was reading Einstein as Edison.  Einstein is exactly the correct representative of scientific genius. aprock (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Continues. Has anybody identified the back-channel that's stirring up all these edits? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

specific geniuses mentioned
I've reviewed the articles of all the specific people mentioned in the lead, and they are all described as geniuses in their articles. I'm not sure what basis canonical representatives are chosen, but the current list (while weakly sourced) does not look unreasonable. aprock (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

IQ Tests
The section of IQ Tests is exceptionally poor. Although the term 'genius' (in much the same way as moron and imbecile had technical meanings) has been used HISTORICALLY as short hand for a range of IQ scores, it is not generally used this way currently, and certainly no-one equates high IQ with genius in its generally understood meaning (and it is not clear this was ever the case). The use of bear IQ scores is also not useful. For IQ scores to have meaning, you need to know at a minimum the standard deviation of the test. 140 on a test with standard deviation 20 is the same as 130 with standard deviation 15. Percentile scores are becoming more popular for this reason.

Terman was working in the first part of last century, and Hollingworth's book was published in 1942. So, doesn't exactly represent current research. However, it does bear some mention due to their historic use of the term. To add a little more context, Hollingworth's 180 score would not generally be measurable on today's tests, since the sample sizes needed to validate the tests for that level of accuracy are not practicably attainable. The more general idea that true genius is a rarity it is interesting.

The one paragraph of criticism references Stephen J Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, which is not an uncontroversial book. The risk, though is that the article starts to wander off into the general area of IQ, and strays away from a discussion of genius specifically.

Anders Ericsson does not deal specifically with the issue of genius, but discusses what he terms experts and elite performers. This encompasses things like chess champions, elite athletes, musicians, and deals with performance rather than creativity. This seems to me to be a different group from say, Shakespeare, Einstein or Julius Caesar (I recognise that those examples are themselves contentious). The article needs to make clear the connection between Ericsson's work and genius.

What I do find interesting is the idea that a certain level of intelligence might be a pre-requisite for anything we could comfortably term 'genius'. It seems self evident that those with extremely low IQs are extremely unlikely to be called geniuses even if they are exceptional in some way. We might be more inclined to label them as savants. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Malcom Gladwell, Anders Ericsson
I removed the paragraph on Malcom Gladwell and Anders Ericsson after reviewing their work. Their popular writing is about mastery and success, not psychometrics and IQ testing. The subheader is about genius, psychometrics, IQ testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhalluka (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC) --- Bhalluka (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No references to Simonton's work?
I see three of Dean Keith Simonton's books about genius in the bibliography for this article, but no uptake of his extensive research on genius at all in the article text. Reading Simonton's books will be a good place to start for future revisions of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Isaac Newton picture
the guy who made physics all by himself not mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepalerider2012 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Useful references for this Genius article
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Scope of article?
Let's discuss here the scope of this article, Genius, and what articles elsewhere on Wikipedia appropriately link here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Scope of See also section
Well, I've been editing the See also section. I'm very interested in why you removed links that I added there. I was following WP:ALSO, which states: "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I respectfully request that you restore them. The Transhumanist 22:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding the links to child prodigy lists back in, this time indented under the topic "child prodigy", making the context and criteria for inclusion more obvious. The Transhumanist 23:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Transhumanist, would you mind also examining his removal of see also links and the human intelligence template on these articles?      He said in his user talk that he had to remove the template from all these articles because he doesn't know what they will look like after he finishes editing them. I don't know if that reason for removing is supported by policy. I thought the template was useful and I would like there to be some discussion about whether it should be removed. --Prmct (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree discussion is needed. With the concerns raised by and the revert already done by, there's certainly a lack of consensus for removal of the template. BlackHades (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've copied the above 2 comments to Template talk:Human intelligence, to transfer this discussion thread to where it is on topic. Please continue the discussion about that template's removal over there. Thank you.  (See ya there).  The Transhumanist 08:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaps in this article's coverage
The article animal mentions many animals, and links directly or indirectly to all animal species and breeds, and even provides pathways (in the encyclopedia proper) to almost all notable individual animals. In other words, almost all articles about animals on Wikipedia can be reached via links starting at the animal page.

Ironically, the article genius, which one would expect to be perhaps the most intelligently thought out and designed article on Wikipedia, doesn't identify the many types of genius that exist, nor does it provide linked pathways to the many geniuses who have articles about them on Wikipedia. Who are the geniuses of the world?

The article provides very little assistance to the reader who wants to study geniuses. For that they are forced to resort back to Google, and its haphazard search results. The Transhumanist 00:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What reliable sources do you recommend on the topic of this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking over Wikipedia to find articles about geniuses, see if they have reliable sources included verifying the genius of the bio, and then adding a link and the reference as an example of a genius to this article. Searching out the most well-known geniuses of each era or century would probably be the best approach.  Once they are identified, a search for additional reliable sources can be started at that time.


 * Some geniuses conspicuously missing from this article or a supplemental list include:
 * Homer
 * Confucius
 * Hippocrates
 * Socrates
 * Aristotle
 * Plato
 * Archimedes
 * Genghis Khan
 * Dante Alighieri
 * Nicolaus Copernicus
 * Michelangelo
 * Galileo Galilei
 * René Descartes
 * William Shakespeare
 * Voltaire
 * Baruch Spinoza
 * Johann Sebastian Bach
 * John Locke
 * Isaac Newton
 * Benjamin Franklin
 * Thomas Jefferson
 * Napoleon
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 * Ludwig van Beethoven
 * Elizabeth Barrett Browning
 * Robert Browning
 * Marie Curie
 * Thomas Edison
 * Nikola Tesla
 * George Washington Carver
 * Niels Bohr
 * Linus Pauling
 * Isaac Asimov
 * Noam Chomsky
 * Steve Jobs
 * Stephen Hawking
 * Garry Kasparov
 * Ray Kurzweil
 * Steven Spielberg


 * Just to name a few. The Transhumanist 11:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, the question I asked was related to reliable sources guidelines here on Wikipedia, and I was wondering what sources external to Wikipedia you would recommend on the broad topic of genius. (You can see examples of recommendations in earlier sections of this talk page.) In other words, what can someone read other than Wikipedia to improve content quality among as many of the  articles on Wikipedia as we can? What sources do you suggest? What sources does anyone else following this discussion suggest? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Transhumanist, would you like to collaborate in an article expansion of this article? Checking earlier discussion on this talk page, I see there are two sources that are inexpensive (and readily available in libraries) and comprehensive in their coverage of this article's topic that would be useful for identifying facts and subtopics to include in an article expansion here. I have both sources at hand? How would you like to collaborate in expanding this article, with a goal of bringing the article up to good article status and then featured article status? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Genious?
Why is there a redirect from "Genious?" This has the unfortunate effect of Google providing the information on this page as a "web definition" of "genious." Suggest the "genious" page be removed. (Google "define:genious") Danchall (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Two convenient sources for this article
There are two inexpensive, popular but thoroughly referenced books about genius that would be very good reliable sources for improvements to this article. You should be able to find them at a library near you. They are



and



Both books are readable and interesting, and cite their sources so that you can check details. The authors of both books are authors of previous, thicker and more scholarly books on genius that have received many favorable reviews. I'll add the Robinson Very Short Introduction book to the Further reading section of this article first, and then move both books into the bibliography of the article as they used to reference article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Listed examples should be cited specifically to a source
This article accumulates names of persons who are claimed to be geniuses, but usually without citing any source. I have the Cox source (an old source) cited in the article in my office. I also have the newer (and better) books Genius 101 by Dean Keith Simonton and Genius: A Very Short Introduction by Andrew Robinson in my office. We should be checking sources together before adding names of examples to this article, to make sure we are talking about examples who are generally regarded in reliable sources to be geniuses. I'll try to clean up this article with this long-standing issue in mind, and I invite everyone to join in on checking reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

False statement: Gauss did not discover the normal distribution
The section titled Galton contains this sentence:

"Gauss discovered the normal distribution (bell-shaped curve): given a large number of measurements of the same variable under the same conditions, they vary at random from a most frequent value, the "average," to two least frequent values at maximum differences greater and less than the most frequent value."

No, Gauss (1777-1855) did not discover the normal distribution. It was known at least by the time of Abraham de Moivre (1667-1754), who discovered that it is an approximation to the binomial distribution that becomes exact in the limit, as the number of trials approaches ∞. (See de Moivre–Laplace theorem.)

It is possible that Gauss discovered the (more general form of) the Central Limit theorem. Perhaps that is why his name is attached to the normal distribution (also known as the Gaussian distribution). But he most definitely did not discover it.Daqu (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mozart Bias
'Leonardo da Vinci is widely acknowledged as having been a genius and a polymath.'

'Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, prodigy and music genius '

Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources on the topic of genius at hand? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 16:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The captions cited above don't, and by this article's own admission:


 * 'There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real
 * meaning has long been a subject of debate, ...' Beingsshepherd (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Heritability of genius
I realize that there is already a (controversial) article on heritability of IQ, but I would like to see a section on this topic. Looking back at old notes on this topic, I have this article The Genetics of Genius (1998) by David Lykken which talks about how Secretariat's children didn't reach his level and also brings up the example of Carl Friedrich Gauss but "taught himself to read and to do simple arithmetic by the time he was three years old". II | (t - c) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Genius and emotional intelligence
Hello! I know that many geniuses have low emotional intelligence and he leads to mental disorders, but i cannot find reliable sources. You can help me?Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to find sources for the content you wish to add. AndrewOne (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is ok? "Some people have high IQs and low emotional intelligence" https://www.skillsyouneed.com/general/emotional-intelligence.html
 * And this: "Perceived Emotional Intelligence is Impaired and Associated with Poor Community Functioning in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339495/ Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the first of those two sources is questionable in its reliability. I also explained before why the second source can't be used here. Nothing is said about genius in that summary. AndrewOne (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I found this source: "people with low emotional intelligence suffer from mental disorders, lack of empathy, anxiety, anger, weak defense mechanisms, and have problems in administration of their emotions more than others" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905545/
 * It is ok? Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not proven the assertions you wanted in the article. That most recent source says that the results of the study "showed a correlation between emotional intelligence and mental disorders with internet addiction", and I have already told you that the other source is of questionable reliability. AndrewOne (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok! What about this? https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/ppp_lehrstuehle/psychologie_4/pressearchiv/Emotional_Intelligence_as_a_Factor_in_Mental_Health.pdf Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Geniusology
Most of the content of Geniusology is primary sources and seems designed to promulgate this theory, without indication of wide acceptance. I was tempted to nominate for AfD but there may be some content to salvage that could be included at the Genius page. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are stars, constellations, black wholes -- and there is an article on Astronomy (a separate article). There is thinking, emotions, behavioral problems -- and there is a science called Psychology. Why? Because there is SUBJECT to study and there is science -- with its methodology, theories, hypothesis, etc. There are numerical regularities -- but there is a science of Mathematics. Different things. There is a physical world in movement, but there is a science-- Physics. A science is a study of -- it is a separate subject to study -- not the matter! Actually, I do not care this way or other. But the moment you add something to an established article, there will be FORCES (read AUTHORS) against that. and the discussion will start (ignite) anew. If you are going to deal with this by yourself, go ahead --merge! I did my work describing the science! Oh, I checked the article on Genius once again and I see one more thing. Some of the authors even doubt that the concept of genius should exist...Good luck. Obrazcity (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources you posted for "Geniusology" for the most part seem to be related to the person who coined the term, and none seem to indicate wide acceptance of the term. This isn't the place to post original research or theories that are not widely published or discussed in independent reliable sources. The wording of the page suggests an attempt to spread word of this term and not an effort to write an encyclopedic article.  331dot (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge: It could be argued that this term is simply describing a field of study that already exists. The work of Catharine Cox Miles, for example, might be thought of as proto-geniusology. The lists of Tony Buzan (partially included on my user page) are another example. Nevertheless, there indeed appears to be no significant acceptance of this particular term in independent sources, and thus the word definitely doesn't merit a stand-alone article at this point. I would gladly support a separate page on this subject once there has been notable coverage. AndrewOne (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend an AfD for Geniusology rather than merging any content here. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * AfD would only be appropriate if there is nothing of Geniusology to salvage(WP:ATD). If Geniusology duplicates this page, it could simply be turned into a redirect. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The page has been deleted per Articles for deletion/Geniusology. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Genius and I.Q.
If a Individual is few Dimensional!How does any one of them Qualify to be the most Intelligent Mentally and Spiritually in Existence? Also the Sanctuary of Minds that were and Are can be classified as Just that because of this Evidence what Soul could be Distinguished as Superior without all Being Considered that are and Were Obscure and Unknown? If forever, Intelligence is not and shall ever be Restricted only to Genetics,Back Ground,Profession or Partial Bias and Ignorance! Furthermore has not Genius and I.Q. been Completely About Manifold Brilliance,Creative Uniqueness,Psychological Power and Energy,Progressions,Demonstrations Consistently and Virtually Unlimited Operation as an Individual Mind,Identity and Spiritually!The Obvious Rank,Earnestly Achieved Reign,Clear Radiance, Potential,Capabilities,Various Powers and Remarkable Intelligence that is Staggering to the Imagination! Proof how could such and Individual not be defined as Something that Exceeds Genius and I.Q? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinite Plane (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding Picture to Genius Page
Hello,

I wish to add Kalidasa's picture to this page. I think it would be good to get representation of more non western figures as well and Kalidasa is one of the greatest Sanskrit poets. Here's the exact picture that would be added: There are some references (and I could find more) that are a testament to his stature and genius.

Dude7291 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291
 * I'd argue that this page already has too many examples; it's devolving into a "list of geniuses." OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest it seems a bit unfair to flag this addition like this. There was the addition of Confucius earlier this year (for the same reason I gave) and it went by ok (no one reverted it!). There were also additions of "geniuses" from other fields for the same reason with no objection. I don't understand why this case was suddenly reverted.


 * If the number really is the issue then I would suggest that we do more to work within the number to make the page more representative of accomplishment from cultures and civilizations from around the world. In its current state the list is simply not representative enough. Dude7291 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291
 * Can you provide your own definition of "consensus"? has cited scholarly sources above and there is clearly a lack of scarcity of scholarly sources which describe Kalidasa as genius. The only argument made here against the inclusion is that "this page already has too many examples"; to address this concern I would support removal of images of Marie Curie, Aristotle, since no sources have been provided for them, nor their main article talks about them being "genius". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I too would support the removal of another to make room. I think we should rethink the list altogether starting with this case. Dude7291 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291
 * Does this page really need to be the center of an endless argument of people arguing for the inclusion of their favorite genius? If we are going to cite a few examples, there are a few ways to distribute those examples; area of genius, and geographical/cultural area. At the moment, the distribution is more aligned toward the former, with only one non-Western individual represented. If we're going to include another non-Western figure, I'd argue that Srinivasa Ramanujan is more frequently cited as a genius than Kalidasa. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to adding Srinivasa Ramanujan instead. I picked Kalidasa though for precisely that reason. In the popular sense Ramanujan is more well known; whereas Kalidasa is lesser known popularly (at least in the West) but is equal in standing. I do think this is a worthwhile discussion to have though. I take issue with the fact that the distribution varies over area of genius as opposed to the geographic/cultural area and I am sure many people agree. It conveys a poorer perception about certain cultures/geographic location while conveying a more positive perception about others. I think that kind of cultural impact takes precedence over other types of diversity. It would be great to have both but if we must choose one I think we should choose geographic representation. I understand the sentiment that there are too many examples. Adding one more indeed causes an overflow into the references section. I would propose that we remove one (suggestions listed in previous comments) to add Srinivasa Ramanujan. Dude7291 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291
 * I'm OK with replacing Aristotle with either (although I would be opposed to removing Marie Curie, as she's the only woman mentioned. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 on replacing Aristotle. I don't see a good reason to replace Marie Curie. Dude7291 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291
 * I'd lean a little toward Ramanujan to balance arts/sciences representation (though Da Vinci straddles both, and Fischer/chess is somewhere in between). OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure that works. I can add Ramanujan in and replace Aristotle. Sound good? Is there anything else I should take care of before making this change? By the way, if anyone else has any objections, please add to this discussion. Dude7291 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291

Trimmed See also section
I've removed a significant number of lists of people from the See also section. These were simply lists of people of various occupations, not lists of geniuses in various occupation. Some of them may be geniuses, but most of them were not (and some may have been complete failures at those particular occupations). I don't believe those lists belong in the See also section any more than the many lists of people by occupation that were not included. Meters (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kubrick among the nine pictured geniuses?
Someone being not just mentioned on this page as a genius, but being one of the nine pictured folks, kind of implies that they're one of the 'geniuses among geniuses'. And Kubrick was a genius of camerawork, certainly, but despite the dependence of artistic opinions on personal values (which are difficult to prove correct), I am confident that there are more encyclopedic choices than Kubrick for placement in the top nine. There is evidence that the sorts of people who edit Wikipedia tend to be uninterested in most art before the second half of the 20th century, probably because the modern world is the result of so much rapid change and it is now hard for people to find even the world of a century ago to be fascinating. But when evaluating the geniuses of human history in their proper context, it is rather obvious to me that Dante, Shakespeare, Newton, and Kant, for example, were greater minds. People whose greater significance is more debatable, but whom I personally respect more, are Virgil, Jesus, Du Fu, Spinoza, Bach, Beethoven, Hegel, Tolstoy, and Ingmar Bergman. But none of these people are in that top nine. AndrewOne (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)