![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
and now, the writing assessment essay
author: me
requirements: between 500 and 1200 words; no outside discussion, research, or revising prior to submission of the essay
final word count: 1023
time taken: about an hour and a half, breaks and planning included
topic: "our genius problem" by marjorie garber
directions: take one stance based off of the article and defend and discuss it through a single thesis supported by commentary.
final product:
In the constant struggle for some form of glory, humanity often defines new criteria for rankings, creates titles just to aid in the appearance of success. One term that has fallen into such misuse is “genius.” Though the original meaning may have been honorable and singular, this prestigious compliment is overused in current society, thrown about with the flippancy of calling a person “fun” or “nice.” In the article **Our Genius Problem**, Marjorie Garber examines the history of the term genius, the many applications it has today, and the suitability of its usage, finding in the end that “‘genius’ has become too easy a word for us to say.” Indeed, the rank of “genius” is applied falsely too often, has no set criteria, and is not truly indicative of any guaranteed successes, and as such cannot be regarded as an actual rank worthy of glory anymore based just on name alone.
One issue raised in that article was that of overuse of the term “genius.” This can be seen in day-to-day life commonly. Teenagers tell one another that they are “geniuses” based on simple conclusions, particularly witty wordplay, or even an agreeable choice on what restaurant to eat at in the mall’s food court. Not to say that the specific person in question is not intelligent; he or she might even be a genius, but that sort of conclusion cannot be based on one blasé decision. This same misuse appears in the media frequently. When a football coach is matched with the word “genius” by a computer over 200 times, as was the case with Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots, not for his own intelligence but merely for some good plays, frivolity in usage is apparent. Any word, when overused, loses a piece of its meaning. “Genius,” however, has been so abused that the entire meaning is fading rapidly, losing all honor when every other person with a halfway-decent idea of accomplishment is toted as a grand mind.
Misuse, however, did not come out of thin air. It is fed by a lack of actual meaning behind the word, spurring people to apply it to anyone and everyone who might seem to fit even the most vague notion of what a genius might be. To many, a genius is a solitary person with a mind capable of achieving great things no one else ever has; as Garber notes, people eschew the idea that great discoveries come from “a whole laboratory of investigators” or “an extensive team of technicians, mechanics, and scientists,” favoring instead to glorify Watson and Crick as an isolated duo in their discovery of DNA’s structure, raise up Edison as the isolated inventor who came up with the light bulb and phonograph out of his head alone.
Still more vague is the idea of what qualifies one person as a genius as opposed to all others; does a genius have to be skilled in matters of natural talent rather than educated, or is any great thinker viable? Can a scientist’s creations, backed by research and solid calculations (regardless of what spontaneous thought may have gone into the original thesis or what intuitive connections into the conclusion), be regarded on the same level as a poet’s soft sonnet or violent villanelle, whelped by the inner folds of the brain alone? These discrepancies between definitions lead to each person drawing his or her own conclusions, leading eventually to a set of decided “geniuses” in every mind of every person and adding up to more “geniuses” overall than should statistically be. With so many geniuses declared by so many varying criteria, it is impossible to accept every single one as among the greatest minds of the world.
Considering that, by what criteria should geniuses be judged? It is for this purpose that the intelligence quotient, or IQ, was created. However, this too has its fallacies. As proven by tracking a group of about 1,500 children with certifiable IQs above “genius level,” no test score can predict what great accomplishments may be achieved later on in life. The group produced no Nobel Prize winners, no Pulitzer Prize winners, and no “Picassos.” They may have had the mental capacities to learn, reason, and rationalize like geniuses, but to what end? What comes of a genius that makes no mark on the world, leaves no footprint to change lives forever? Shakespeare and Einstein are remembered as geniuses for their contributions, for plays and formulas respectively. Given this, then, it seems that the title of “genius” should be saved for those who prove themselves to be geniuses through action and achievement, not those who simply score above a certain level on a standardized test. Who can measure great literature on a set scale, say what scientific discoveries will matter most in fifty years? Only time and the actual repercussions of work can show how important, how influential, how absolutely essential anything may become.
The title of genius is one given out too freely in modern society. People strive to find honorable geniuses among themselves, quantify the essence of genius, and put a label and number on those ranking above the “genius level”. In reality, however, none of these tactics can ever work; the true genius is the one who pursues passion, delves into the matters that appeal to his or her own mind, and makes advances in whatever field that may be. Genius can only be judged by the aftermath of the discoveries, by assessing just how much that person changed the field, by measuring just how deep the footprints left behind in previously unknown soil are. In its quest to honor all types, humanity has abused the title of genius through overuse, definitions, and testing, and has consequently lost sight of the true connotations of the word. The genius is not someone who can be bottled and placed on the shelf like a laboratory specimen; it is the one person whose brilliance is exceeded only by his or her passion and natural skill, and in whose mind the three merge into one unstoppable force, able to move mountains with just a microscope or a pencil.
so... whatcha think?
no subject
excellent essay, sissy-chan. now i want to read the prompt! can you send or post a link?
:)
re:
Ian here
(Anonymous) 2003-06-12 04:05 am (UTC)(link)And it flowed so well in-and-of-itself too!
though I do tend to disagree with what it implied, that the degradation of a word's power through "misuse" and generalizations is a bad thing. A word, when on a large scale, can't really be misused. A word is only a series of sounds or lines of ink (or ANSI charicters :p ) that a group has givin a certen meaning to; when socity starts to use a word diffrently then it has in the past, it isn't using the word incorrectly, it's modifying what it wants the word to mean. This is how languages evolve. A hole has opened up in the English language (at least for many members of this socity) and "genius" has been chosen to fill it. This does create a new probablem though, for "genius", as our pimary word for describing an indavidual possing a great intelect, was holding a very usefull spot in our language already, and with this new meaning tacked on to it, it loses some of its potency in this area. The socity, though, will deal with this new hole; one of the other words that retain the meaning of 'a great mind' may rise in prominence, or a word never before seen may take its place, or "genius"'s new meaning may wane in popularity and it'll regain its old position, or something else.
So don't worry about how emo kids say the new AFI album is genius (even though it is); languages are allways changing and crappy changes will die away while good ones will make it stronger and more versitle.
re: ian here
i like it. nice idea.