Between the genius and the creative,who will eventually survive on this earth?

Question

In the so-called theory,"survivor of the fittest",the most intelligent of all living things would eventually succeed in passing on their genes for the species to survive esspecially among geniuses.But,how about the mildly intelligent or creative groups of people?As far as i know it's the creative one's that usually invented many tools or gadgets and makes a lot of contribution in modernizing the human race while the geniuses had to study it first.What do you guys think about this?

Answer 1

ive seen some of the lowest iq peolpe in the world in the mountains that can and will survive any of us,they can fish and hunt and grow food unlike anything

Answer 2

Just some comments:

Creativity is often a part of genius or at least associated with it; and genuine, true, creativity can manifest itself in ways not generally seen as being creative by many people. A person who has genius may or may not have creativity, and the person of high creativity may or may have genius.

Then there is artistic creativity, which is its own form of creativity.

I think your assertion about tools and gadgets versus studying isn't quite correct.

It doesn't take particularly great creativity to invent a simple gadget. When it comes to more substantial inventions it is often accepted that the inventors of the more "impressive" inventions did have genius.

Your assertion that geniuses had to "study it first" isn't, I believe, correct; because people with true genius don't study they discover. They are the originators of ideas, the exceptional perceivers, and sometimes the recipient of a knowledge that can seem to come automatically and without study. I know your remark about studying may mean that you believe geniuses study life, and that may be true as well; but I think for the real genius there is far less studying than there is a kind of automatic understanding from which that individual can go on and share that understanding, invent something, or create something.

Someone like Sir Isaac Newton who "created" (if that's the right term) calculus brought to the world an understanding that moved mankind farther into advanced understanding of the universe than it would have otherwise been. Still, he invested the telescope that uses a mirror. Albert Einstein moved mankind farther into yet more advanced understanding of the universe. The invention of the telephone or light bulb may have been wonderful inventions, but I don't think they did for the world what people like Newton and Einstein did. The founding fathers created a Constitution, which has built into it an ingenious enough framework that it was the foundation on which the United States, now the world's "super-power", was built. Not since the Roman Empire was there a democracy that was governed independent of any church - and this time it seemed to work. Genius should not be underestimated when it comes to trying to figure out what people have made the most contributions to mankind. Modernizing the human race is one thing. Understanding it and the universe is another because when it comes down to it there will be no moving into the future without first understanding life and the universe and using that understanding to make a better world tomorrow.

I have a great appreciation for the inventors of gadgets, but I don't think they are necessarily geniuses or creative. I believe the inventors of the most significant inventions were/are probably geniuses (at least in some way). I believe that someone with genuine genius has the most potential when it comes to changing the world.

I also believe, though, that as long as there is a healthy prenatal environment and a birth without brain injury, that every newborn infant has the potential of both genius and creativity; and that the catch is not all parents know how to nurture or recognize it. Even when they do, I believe that today the schools, in general, often do not recognize genius or creativity; and even when they do they often don't know or don't have the resources to nurture it. I believe it is not a matter of passing on genes but of knowing how to demonstrate thinking.

I think that since the beginning of time life and the universe has been a puzzle, with occasional geniuses finding a piece of the puzzle here or there. At this time in history many of the puzzle pieces have been put in place, but a few spaces are left. It would take only a few very intelligent people to find the few remaining puzzle pieces to complete the picture, and when they do it will provide mankind with a solid understanding of exactly what it takes to nurture human potential in a way that will make genius and creativity the rule rather than the exception - and so I do not believe that evolution will take away either geniuses or highly creative individuals.

Answer 3

First of all, check your spelling and grammar next time, please.

"As far as i know it's the creative one's that usually invented many tools or gadgets and makes a lot of contribution in modernizing the human race while the geniuses had to study it first."

Maybe they are or were "Genius", but nobody did notice it.
How did you get it. A "Genius" has not to study, only to observe to understand the things. Like Leonardo da Vinci.

What do you guys think about this?


Resume:
If anybody seems to be a genius, it is a mater of intelligent persons they surround him. A genius, like Da Vinci, maybe would not be a genius right now, but in this time he was one. "Geniusysm" is relative.
On the other hand, a Genius, by his own, has no possibility to survive because normally they are weaker than the, you said "creative", what ever the meaning is, are. There live is thinking, not fighting and therefore they will lose versus the, maybe less intelligent, but stronger one.

Answer 4

Well damn, i see a heck of a lot more morons out there than genuis' and/or arttistic individuals. I happen to be artistic, so i'm bias saying my genes are going rule the planet... MU HAHA HA HA.

I just hope unhealthy (peanut allergies are getting just out of hand!), stupid, non intelligent, waste of air people stop procreating. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest anymore. The geniuses became doctors - not so smart now, are they??? We need more creative people to work on the design and comfort in the waiting rooms.

Answer 5

I think the creative people will win, as they can make do with anything, while the intelligent genius fail in the most simplest tasks, they are clever for the complex problems but the simple ones, put them in a fix

Answer 6

~ A combination of creative people with the higest IQs that have the MOST sex.

An interesting title for a book on that would be------

(The Study of the use of Tools and Gadgets Used in Intercourse: or How To C u m Inside With Flair)

Answer 7

in the theory the fittests are the ones that spread their genes the most, and unfortunatly in our case that is people on welfare kicking out 10 and 12 children, in a pure darwinian sense they are the fittest. the genious and creative people (which I am confussed they are generally the same in my experience, maybe you mean brain vs. brawn...anyway) many college proffessors and scientists do not even have offspring so their genes are lost, however they are culturally broadcasting their ideas and maybe that is more important to them, that their ideas live on.

Answer 8

I think being creative makes you a genius anyway but overall, the creative one would survive.

Answer 9

Definitely the creative.

Answer 10

The creative genius is always superior.