Originally Posted by why
I don't see the point of including anyone outside of mathematics and the sciences as a genius. Maybe some people like Shakespeare would qualify, but Thomas Pynchon? Robert Frost? I wouldn't even include them in a list of worthwhile writers let alone among people like Gibbs.
Good call on Witten. Weinberg should probably be up there with him too.
I think limiting genius to mathematics and sciences is too narrow and confines the discussion to only one type of intelligence.
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
The hard sciences have already been well represented in the thread. One could argue that any PhD in physics is a genius in terms of raw intellectual power. But I don't think listing Mensa or physics faculty was the purpose of OP; after all, Teddy Roosevelt was included in the list.
Your view of genius is far too narrow for purposes of this thread.
Originally Posted by jaypee
All very talented, but psychometrically none of these people were geniuses. You are just naming famous people.
I can't tell if you're having a laugh or not?
Christopher Langan was a genius.. Amadeo Giannini was a very intelligent man..
I think the "psychometric testing" rubric is too simplistic and some measure of outstanding accomplishment, in whatever field, is the critical determinant (Henry Ford, anyone?). I've known plenty of brilliant people who've never done anything with their gifts and never will.
Having said that, there are any number of lesser known, brilliant scientists who might be considered geniuses, among them
Josiah Willard Gibbs (mentioned earlier by why)
Robert Burns Woodward
If you're unfamiliar with them, you might read a little about their accomplishments
rach, John von Neumann was truly remarkable, though unfortunately we can't claim him as an American. There must be some American dancers and musicians that we're forgetting(?).