5 year old with 147 IQ becomes youngest Mensa member ever

So if you've got a really wonderful facility for singing and all you do is sing material written by other artists, you think your ability is being utlized in a creative, innovative way?

You're assuming the people that are actually creative and innovative within the music industry are those who are doing the singing.

People that don't do anything with theirs skills don't really gain notoriety for them. There are a lot of people who are good at math but we only know Mark Zuckerberg's name because of what he accomplished.

I don't see what is distinctly "American" about any of it.

If you're basing your perceptions off of things like "American Idol" keep in mind that the whole model for that show came from Europe.
 
Last edited:
Considering there are adults that can't seem to do what he does, yeah it's an impressive feat. Hell, you can say actors are in the same boat because they aren't directing or writing their own ****.
 
I'm quite certain Tanishq Abraham joined Mensa at 4 years old. Someone's got their facts wrong.
 
And a Miss Alice Amos was accepted at age 3 earlier this year.
 
What fantasy nonsense are you babbling? :o


No, but seriously if he's right then alter the title to current youngest Mensa member.
 
If I live to see Tanishq Abraham battle Gus Dorman in giant mech suits for the fate of the human race, I'll die happy.
 
You're assuming the people that are actually creative and innovative within the music industry are those who are doing the singing.

American Idol/X factor contestants for instance, have great singing ability, which is nice, but they're not writing or performing their own material. They're regurgitating another artist's songs.

This is what I mean by placing emphasis on solely the ability rather than the creativity/innovation that this ability enhances or allows.

That's the point of my comparison- it's really cool to be "gifted" and "special", but if that ability isn't used to creatively, as in the make the world a better place, or help people (or whatever), then it's pretty useless.


People that don't do anything with theirs skills don't really gain notoriety for them.



Considering there are adults that can't seem to do what he does, yeah it's an impressive feat. Hell, you can say actors are in the same boat because they aren't directing or writing their own ****.

Yeah, it is impressive- but at the end of the day, like a singer on X Factor or whatever, that's all it is, impressive.

And yes, I do think that a greater importance is placed on "acting" than there actually is. An actor without the director,writer,costume designer, editor, etc... is really nothing.
 
Awesome. Let's hope he actually does/accomplishes something with it.

It seems to be primarily an "American" thing to equate memorizing facts with being intelligent or "smart".


Again the model of show you are referring to comes from Europe.

and singers not writing their own material is hardly anything new.

Do great concert pianists always write their own music? Hardly. But that's not their job. Their job is to interpret the material and bring it out into performance to be presented to the audience. Otherwise the music remains dots on a page. The person who write the music is not necessarily able to perform the music. You can know how to write music in bass clef but have no idea how to play a trombone.


And the work of directors and writers is "nothing" without actors to bring it to the screen. Separate skills that make up a collaborative effort. Acting though is a very creative form of performance. The material and direction alone do not drive the performance. Actors bring much of themselves and their own interpretations and their own abilities to help create characters. Writers and directors do not necessarily contribute at all to the exact way things are performed. Little ticks, the way things are phrased, can really sell or take away from the material.

As written, Jack Sparrow was basically nothing like what ended up on screen. He is as much Johnny Depp's creation as the writers' if not more so. As director, of course, Verbinsky allowed those choices to be made and then further helped to shape the film and performance through editing. Different skills. Different parts of the same process.

The Gary Jules version of Mad World or the Johnny Cash version of Hurt evoke a very different set of emotions and meanings than the original performances of the same songs.
 
Last edited:
Again the model of show you are referring to comes from Europe.

and singers not writing their own material is hardly anything new.

Do great concert pianists always write their own music? Hardly. But that's not their job. Their job is to interpret the material and bring it out into performance to be presented to the audience. Otherwise the music remains dots on a page. The person who write the music is not necessarily able to perform the music. You can know how to write music in bass clef but have no idea how to play a trombone.

The model for this sort of program and this school of thought are hugely popular in America though.

I don't think we're understanding each other, and I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. No, they don't always write their own music, but if all you do in life with your ability, is regurgitate others works, no matter how well you do it- then you're not making the most of yourself or your abilities- and you certainly can't be considered an artist. I've absolutely no qualms with a pianist performing Mozart- but if that's ALL you do, then that's a bit hollow.


And the work of directors and writers is "nothing" without actors to bring it to the screen. Separate skills that make up a collaborative effort. Acting though is a very creative form of performance. The material and direction alone do not drive the performance. Actors bring much of themselves and their own interpretations and their own abilities to help create characters. Writers and directors do not necessarily contribute at all to the exact way things are performed. Little ticks, the way things are phrased, can really sell or take away from the material.


Again, I've never said that acting isn't important- I did say that far more importance is placed on it than it actually deserves in the scheme of the entire film. The actor, while important, are tools used to bring the writers/directors vision to life in the same way that costumes and sets are. There are opportunities for creativity, yeah. But only inasmuch as the writer or director allows.
 
As written, Jack Sparrow was basically nothing like what ended up on screen. He is as much Johnny Depp's creation as the writers' if not more so. As director, of course, Verbinsky allowed those choices to be made and then further helped to shape the film and performance through editing. Different skills. Different parts of the same process.

Yes, Depp was allowed to make creative choices- within the parameters that the director allowed.

It's like if someone gave you a coloring book and told you that you could use whatever colors you wanted. You're still only coloring someone else's artwork no matter how "creatively" you color it in.

The Gary Jules version of Mad World or the Johnny Cash version of Hurt evoke a very different set of emotions and meanings than the original performances of the same songs.

These artists also write/wrote and perform their own material. I'm not saying, never cover another artists material or never study a masters paintings by imitating their work- my point is the way that society conflates facility with intelligence. being able to paint well, does not guarantee that you will be able to create a work of art that will captivate people's minds and hearts for centuries. Being really good at science does not guarantee that you will discover the cure for cancer. These things require creative/innovative thought and hard work.
 
Haha, I swear this place gets more Sheldon Cooper-ish every day.


How do they define intelligence in Europe then?
 
This kid is going places, and I hope he makes something of his intelligence. I had a 136 in fifth grade, but I've fried my brain since then.
 
Pffft. What a ****ing show-off. :o
 
He needs to get to work making the future into reality. :cmad:
 
Yes, Depp was allowed to make creative choices- within the parameters that the director allowed.

It's like if someone gave you a coloring book and told you that you could use whatever colors you wanted. You're still only coloring someone else's artwork no matter how "creatively" you color it in.



These artists also write/wrote and perform their own material. I'm not saying, never cover another artists material or never study a masters paintings by imitating their work- my point is the way that society conflates facility with intelligence. being able to paint well, does not guarantee that you will be able to create a work of art that will captivate people's minds and hearts for centuries. Being really good at science does not guarantee that you will discover the cure for cancer. These things require creative/innovative thought and hard work.

Now you are being ridiculous. Its a collaborative process. The director themselves are largely limited by what studio allows and are guided by the writing. Again, its a collaborative process. The performance is the work of the performer. Do the writer and director have input? Certainly, but it is in fact part of an actor's skill to take and apply that input and incorporate it into their work. Directing is the director's work. Writing is the writer's work. Actors and directors often have input on the writing or make new things on the fly.

And since when does society not value creativity and innovative thought? There's a reason why Steve Jobs was treated like a secular saint when he died.

And just look at our fictional heroes and the themes surrounding them. Batman and Iron Man are both inventors and industrialists. The theme of movie after movie that America cranks out is about the responsibility to use your abilities to act.

If anything it is a fundamental value that our culture tries to drill into people's heads.

Even being the most creative, innovative and hard working person doesn't "guarantee" that you will leave behind some lasting work.
 
Now you are being ridiculous. Its a collaborative process. The director themselves are largely limited by what studio allows and are guided by the writing. Again, its a collaborative process. The performance is the work of the performer. Do the writer and director have input? Certainly, but it is in fact part of an actor's skill to take and apply that input and incorporate it into their work. Directing is the director's work. Writing is the writer's work. Actors and directors often have input on the writing or make new things on the fly.

It's ridiculous because you disagree with it, you mean. The writer/director are still bringing their vision to life and the actor is one of the tools they use to bring that vision to life. I wouldn't count Gore Verbinsky as an auteur, would you? Among those that I would count as auteurs- writers who also direct their own material and are pretty much given carte blanche by the studio to do their thing, like Quentin Tarantino, Charlie Kaufman, Wes Anderson or Derek Cianfrance. Whilst the film is still a "collaborative process", the director gets the final say on what goes and what stays. They get to bring their vision to life from it's inception to completion-which requires a lot of hard work and creativity. Actors get to be a piece of a larger puzzle, sure- but they're simply not accomplishing what the directors I've listed above are (unless they write, direct AND act in their film)


And since when does society not value creativity and innovative thought? There's a reason why Steve Jobs was treated like a secular saint when he died.

And just look at our fictional heroes and the themes surrounding them. Batman and Iron Man are both inventors and industrialists. The theme of movie after movie that America cranks out is about the responsibility to use your abilities to act.

If anything it is a fundamental value that our culture tries to drill into people's heads.



Yeah, it's a great idea, but our increasingly ignorant society simply loves the idea of just being "special" and "gifted", being set apart from the crowd, being unique, and that having a talent or ability to distinguish you from the crowd is simply enough. The creativity and hard work to accomplish something worthwhile is not valued nearly as high as it should be. The sheer number of "gifted" programs in schools comprised of students who qualify as "gifted" because they're good at math or memorization tells us this, the praise of artists who can sing well or paint well, while creating nothing of substance or content tells us this. This is the way that we measure "talent" and "intelligence".

The perpetuation of this ideal in films, particularly superhero films, give the lowest among us, the dull-witted, the unattractive, the ignorant, a false sense of importance, of "specialness". They promote the fantasy that "you too can be gifted and unique with no effort". It's certainly nothing new, but that's all it is, a fantasy.



Even being the most creative, innovative and hard working person doesn't "guarantee" that you will leave behind some lasting work.


Maybe not, but at least you've put in the time and made the effort and you can rest easy knowing that, instead of reflecting on a life spent treading in someone else's footsteps.
 
It's ridiculous because you disagree with it, you mean. The writer/director are still bringing their vision to life and the actor is one of the tools they use to bring that vision to life. I wouldn't count Gore Verbinsky as an auteur, would you? Among those that I would count as auteurs- writers who also direct their own material and are pretty much given carte blanche by the studio to do their thing, like Quentin Tarantino, Charlie Kaufman, Wes Anderson or Derek Cianfrance. Whilst the film is still a "collaborative process", the director gets the final say on what goes and what stays. They get to bring their vision to life from it's inception to completion-which requires a lot of hard work and creativity. Actors get to be a piece of a larger puzzle, sure- but they're simply not accomplishing what the directors I've listed above are (unless they write, direct AND act in their film)






Yeah, it's a great idea, but our increasingly ignorant society simply loves the idea of just being "special" and "gifted", being set apart from the crowd, being unique, and that having a talent or ability to distinguish you from the crowd is simply enough. The creativity and hard work to accomplish something worthwhile is not valued nearly as high as it should be. The sheer number of "gifted" programs in schools comprised of students who qualify as "gifted" because they're good at math or memorization tells us this, the praise of artists who can sing well or paint well, while creating nothing of substance or content tells us this. This is the way that we measure "talent" and "intelligence".

The perpetuation of this ideal in films, particularly superhero films, give the lowest among us, the dull-witted, the unattractive, the ignorant, a false sense of importance, of "specialness". They promote the fantasy that "you too can be gifted and unique with no effort". It's certainly nothing new, but that's all it is, a fantasy.






Maybe not, but at least you've put in the time and made the effort and you can rest easy knowing that, instead of reflecting on a life spent treading in someone else's footsteps.


Way to discount an entire craft.
Auteur theory is kind of bunk as it fails to acknowledge the reality of the job of the vast majority of directors and their relationship with their collaborators. Its like ignoring the contribution of drummers and guitarists and the roles they play in writing songs. Even Wes Anderson's scripts are written by or with other people (The Wilsons, Roman Coppola).

Just as not all directors are "auteurs," not all musicians are necessarily composers. That doesn't mean that other directors and performers are not committed to what they do they just take part in another part of the process. Verbinski may not be an "auteur" but in co-operation with others he works to tell stories and has been quite successful in contributing to popular culture. Just because someone's role is not all encompassing (and again, direction is nothing if not delegation) doesn't mean that they are not partaking in a creative act. A director may sign off on a color swatch, but it is with great artistry that designers create costumes and contribute to films and plays. Like actors too, their own efforts and interpretations are added to the film adding meaning that the director themselves may never take into account. When they give an award for best makeup design, or costume or editing, it is not the director who wins the award.

Where would Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas be without John Williams? His music is often made as part of film projects but they are remembered as great works of their own and are performed the world over. But even Williams work isn't worth the paper its printed on if there is no one to perform it. Screw that whole orchestra of committed professionals though!

Someone is only a true artist if they do everything themselves?

Gaze upon the great artist of our time I guess.

03232009_Room2.jpg


Wiseau wrote, directed, financed, edited, produced and starred in his film. Screw that Spielberg guy, he just directs. Screw Daniel Day Lewis, he just acts. Screw Tony Kushner he just writes. Not a single artist among them!

The problem you're describing isn't a mis-perception of talent. Talent just describes ability. Talent is cheap I agree. What you're arguing for is accomplishment and it is an odd thing to say that accomplishment is devalued as it accomplishment that is awarded and remembered.
 
There are certainly many, many more like him.

But the parents are wise enough not to make their child(ren) a public spectacle.
 
Way to discount an entire craft.
Auteur theory is kind of bunk as it fails to acknowledge the reality of the job of the vast majority of directors and their relationship with their collaborators. Its like ignoring the contribution of drummers and guitarists and the roles they play in writing songs. Even Wes Anderson's scripts are written by or with other people (The Wilsons, Roman Coppola).

Just as not all directors are "auteurs," not all musicians are necessarily composers. That doesn't mean that other directors and performers are not committed to what they do they just take part in another part of the process. Verbinski may not be an "auteur" but in co-operation with others he works to tell stories and has been quite successful in contributing to popular culture. Just because someone's role is not all encompassing (and again, direction is nothing if not delegation) doesn't mean that they are not partaking in a creative act. A director may sign off on a color swatch, but it is with great artistry that designers create costumes and contribute to films and plays. Like actors too, their own efforts and interpretations are added to the film adding meaning that the director themselves may never take into account. When they give an award for best makeup design, or costume or editing, it is not the director who wins the award.

Where would Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas be without John Williams? His music is often made as part of film projects but they are remembered as great works of their own and are performed the world over. But even Williams work isn't worth the paper its printed on if there is no one to perform it. Screw that whole orchestra of committed professionals though!

Someone is only a true artist if they do everything themselves?

Gaze upon the great artist of our time I guess.

03232009_Room2.jpg


Wiseau wrote, directed, financed, edited, produced and starred in his film. Screw that Spielberg guy, he just directs. Screw Daniel Day Lewis, he just acts. Screw Tony Kushner he just writes. Not a single artist among them!

The problem you're describing isn't a mis-perception of talent. Talent just describes ability. Talent is cheap I agree. What you're arguing for is accomplishment and it is an odd thing to say that accomplishment is devalued as it accomplishment that is awarded and remembered.


The problem is that you're describing accomplishment as a reward or some form of recognition or acknowledgement. Accomplishment isn't necessarily something that is publicly recognized and rewarded. It most often comes from the satisfaction in oneself anyway.

Do you remember the part where you said this:

Even being the most creative, innovative and hard working person doesn't "guarantee" that you will leave behind some lasting work.

and then I said this:

Maybe not, but at least you've put in the time and made the effort and you can rest easy knowing that, instead of reflecting on a life spent treading in someone else's footsteps.


My main argument is that our society worships merely having a talent (while I don't agree with you that it's "cheap", it's certainly not everything). Something to make you "special" and "unique" and perhaps bring you lots of money. It's this idea which people fixate on more than using this talent (whatever it may be) to make the effort and put in the hard work necessary to achieve something worthwhile, even if that something you're striving to do is never recognized, at least you tried to make it happen.

All of this is far and away from the main point anyway.

This boy, who is "gifted" right? Everyone is fawning over how brilliant he is and perhaps he has the potential to be.

What I'm saying is that this "brilliance" means nothing to me if he spends the rest of his life NOT working and putting his abilities to the best possible use (which would include being creative and innovative is which ever field he chooses). Until then, I couldn't care less how impressively massive his IQ is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"