Kirk really was a "stack of books with legs"

[Cakes488]

I never bought the "stack of books with legs" description anyway. Kirk (as Shatner portrayed him) always struck me as a streets smart kind of guy. Not highly academic, but wise to the way of the world instead.

I agree with you. But I do think Kirk had plenty of booksmarts too. So the combo between the two made him a formidable adversary I never thought of him as a "genius" either...and I just don't buy it that he is one....well not my definition of one anyway.

he was one of the few who could beat Spock at 3-D chess, not to mention mess up the "flawless logic" of smart computers.

he's definitely a smartie. in TOS, at least, we were always given the idea that he was no mean intellect. he knew his history and literature as well as philosophy and the sciences (even if not on the level of an actual scientist) and showed plenty signs of "book learning".

IMO, this is yet another misconception about Kirk (as in his "womanizer" label).

I'm not sure but we're agreeing here right LOL? Yeah he beat Spock at chess...I think once.... (?) I can only remember one time. And these computers that he talked to death, often they were flawed and Kirk used those flaws against in to get it to self destruct etc... I don't know if I agree with you that there is a misconception about Kirk and his smarts. I think anyone who's watched TOS will agree that Kirk is a smart fella....I would just save the genius label for Spock.

Agreed that he does get a "bad rap" for being a ladies man (lol a lot of guys would love this bad rap lol) ...even I thought that until I saw that website you posted...made me realize that he only bagged the ladies to save his ship...the Enterprise was his main woman!

 

[M'Sharak]

Just because Kirk doesn't act like a genius doesn't mean he isn't one.

That's very true. I have a genius level IQ and, if you met me in real life, you'd never guess that.

Is there a certain way a genius is supposed to act anyway ?
Geniuses or not, people are people and act in all sorts of ways.

Geniuses are just as varied in appearance and behavior as any other subset of "people" you could choose to name.

I think, though, that the idea of precisely what a genius is may be presenting a stumbling block for some; depending upon context, the word has several different meanings. If one defines a genius as being a relative generalist with a quick eye for evaluating situations (even those dealing in fields with which he may be less than familiar) and an aptitude for finding innovative or original solutions where acknowledged experts have been unsuccessful, then that's pretty much the James T. Kirk we saw many times in Original Series episodes. This Kirk (the one in the movie) hasn't quite become that Kirk -- not yet -- but the foundation is there.

The phrase "genius-level repeat offender" which Pike uses implies that he's familiar enough with Kirk's background at that point to know about both Kirk's bad-boy exploits and his (presumably measured by testing) intelligence level. I know that it wasn't in the movie, but I recall reading an article or interview which quoted one of the filmmakers (Orci, perhaps?) as saying that he believed Kirk's Corvette joyride was the very beginning of that bad-boy phase; that Kirk had until then been the well-behaved son and exemplary student, and that his misbehavior was acting-out triggered by what he felt was an unfair punishment of older brother and poor student/underachiever George Samuel, Jr. The boy "Johnny" seen only fleetingly in the movie was supposed to have been Sam running away from home following said punishment, and the trashing of the Corvette was supposed to be Kirk's retaliation against the mean stepfather.

The story would have it that the streak of misbehavior continued, but it's clear in the bar scene that Kirk is still anything but unintelligent, and that's carried over to the following morning when he shows up to board the Academy shuttle and tells Pike he'll complete a rigorous four-year course in three (and apparently delivers on his promise, so far as we're able to see.)

Again, genius isn't a particular look or attitude; it's more to do with innate ability and aptitude and insight. Those have always been an important part of the character of Captain Kirk.

 

[USS KG5]

I agree with you. But I do think Kirk had plenty of booksmarts too. So the combo between the two made him a formidable adversary I never thought of him as a "genius" either...and I just don't buy it that he is one....well not my definition of one anyway.

What is your definition of one?

 

[Praetor]

I think there's a difference between an "instinctive genius" and an "intellectual genius."

I see Kirk more as the type who is a good test taker and makes good intuitive decisions without actually knowing everything he "should" know to get things right. This type of person doesn't have to study because they have can figure out, based on the way a question is asked, what the answer is, without actually knowing the right answer.

Spock, on the other hand, would be an intellectual genius, and would know pretty much everything, and would ace tests easily because he knows so much, but wouldn't necessarily himself be good at the mechanics of test taking or at "guessing." (As alluded to in IV.)

 

[Lt. Trull]

well... the book did say (if you can believe the book adaption by alan dean foster) that the car originally belonged to james and george kirks father and was going to be sold by his step father to piss off his mother.

 

[Cakes488]

I agree with you. But I do think Kirk had plenty of booksmarts too. So the combo between the two made him a formidable adversary I never thought of him as a "genius" either...and I just don't buy it that he is one....well not my definition of one anyway.

What is your definition of one?

Well isn't it obvious?? Me of course!!!

Seriously now...I know I've been over this with Praetor and I think M'sharak and many others...about the real definition of a genius...and I did look it up in the dictionary and it was enlighting because there was a definition in there that could be applied to Kirk's type of "genius"...course, I can't remember it now...but I said Hmmmmm.........but I'm still not going to think of my Kirk as a genius in any case because Spock is my genius and he holds that title alone. So I'm saying that you guys are all correct and that Kirk can easily be thought of as a genius and I see what you're saying and how you got there...but I'm still not going to subsribe to it...personally myself. As usual.....I'm pretty much the minority (or maybe even the only one) in that thinking as well.

 

[Nebula1400]

Just because Kirk doesn't act like a genius doesn't mean he isn't one.

That's very true. I have a genius level IQ and, if you met me in real life, you'd never guess that.

How is a genius supposed to act?

 

[Franklin]

I agree with you. But I do think Kirk had plenty of booksmarts too. So the combo between the two made him a formidable adversary I never thought of him as a "genius" either...and I just don't buy it that he is one....well not my definition of one anyway.

What is your definition of one?

I realize this will depend on what one thinks of IQ tests in general, but a genius is supposed to have an IQ of around 140 or above. Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates are said to have IQs of 160. Over 140 would be less than one-half of one percent of the population, I think. Then again, I'm no genius.

Beyond that, a genius could be doing anything from being a scientist to driving a truck to being the produce manager at your local supermarket. That's about the range. It's silly to define it behaviorally.

 

[Jeri]

Yeah...the guy with supposedly the highest IQ by Guinness works as a bouncer in New Jersey, I heard.

 

[M'Sharak]

Yeah...the guy with supposedly the highest IQ by Guinness works as a bouncer in New Jersey, I heard.

When I was in high school, one of the highest IQs belonged to a guy who was perpetually in trouble and on the verge of suspension for acting up or cutting class. It surprised me to learn it then, but it makes sense to me now. Very intelligent, very bright, but he was bored to death because he wasn't being challenged by the pace and level set for the average student.

It's not much of a stretch for me to imagine that kind of attitude case becoming, a few years down the road, the sort of guy who'd have been hitting on pretty girls in off-base bars and starting fights with the security guys, just for kicks. I wonder whatever happened to him?

 

[superstring01]

It's true. I thought about it and Gary Mitchell was right and still would've been right.

The Academy's a four-year program and Kirk says he'll finish it in three. Well, if the Academy's anything like college, then I can say finishing in three years is no joke. Anyone else here who's been to college will agree with me.

I can count with fingers on one hand the number of people I know who actually graduated in four years, forget about three.

So how did Kirk do it? You need 120 credits to graduate. Every course is three credits. 40 courses. That breaks down into five courses for eight semesters.

If you want to graduate in three years, you'll take six courses per semester for six semesters, and take three summer classes between for your first and second year and your second and third.

That's committment.

Kirk's a bad one to underestimate.

He's a genius. He CLEP'ed out of some classes.

~String

 

[trampledamage]

Kirk's a bad one to underestimate.

This much is certain - in either timeline!

 

[Jeri]

M'Sharak, this is second hand, but that bouncer in New Jersey supposedly said that he'd discovered that only people within 20 IQ points can really comprehend one another. That would make life pretty isolated for him and your acquaintance by that reckoning.

 

[M'Sharak]

M'Sharak, this is second hand, but that bouncer in New Jersey supposedly said that he'd discovered that only people within 20 IQ points can really comprehend one another. That would make life pretty isolated for him and your acquaintance by that reckoning.

I might question the "20 IQ points" figure, but I can see how that could be an isolating factor (and probably is, for some people.) I'm inclined to believe, though, that it's not the case for all people at a high IQ level.

As has been supposed by several people upthread, including myself, people with genius-level IQ, (or whatever the 23rd-century equivalent may be) taken as a group, are likely to be just as varied in every sense as any other subset of humanity you might choose, and that would include variations in the ability to relate to and interact with others of any level; some would be almost completely alienated from other people and some would probably be quite gregarious, with all the shadings in between the two extremes. Kirk falls, presumably, into one of the shadings nearer the middle, and not too close to either end.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's very true. I have a genius level IQ and, if you met me in real life, you'd never guess that.

Is there a certain way a genius is supposed to act anyway ?
Geniuses or not, people are people and act in all sorts of ways.

Einstein was incredibly forgetful and someone whose comportment on first appearance would never lead you to believe he's the man who forever changed how we see the universe.

I really don't think Roddenberry wanted Kirk to be thought of as a genius. For what it's worth, a "stack of books with legs" can also be interpretted as someone who has to work hard and struggle to do well. A normal intellect but an overachiever. That could fit Kirk, too.

But they went the "genius" route, and I have no problem with that. It fits, too.

I think the Kirk/Pike/April character was Roddenberry's idealised version of himself, just as Wes Crusher was. He saw Kirk as an intellectual and well read. Hence Mitchell's comments about Spinoza and the stack of books with legs. I think Shatner took Kirk away from that characterization.

 

[Captain Fine]

Captain Fine, I sure hope you are not thinking of changing your avatar anytime soon.

Captain Fine, I sure hope you are not thinking of changing your avatar anytime soon.

yeah, Captain Fine, please don't change your ava!

Not anytime soon, no. Not until I find an equally sexy picture of our lovely Captain Fine.

As for the whole genius thing, I know I perform well in standardized tests, but my common sense-o-meter might be a bit off! (that "crazy" icon isn't a cute crazy unfortunately )

 

[Jeri]

Captain Fine, that is very reassuring; thanks!

M'Sharak, I'm assuming the way the 20-point scenario works against the bouncer is that since he's the top, he only has the 20 points below him range to work with.

Most of us would have a 20-point range above and below; i.e., a 40-point range. Even for geniuses. So that includes a lot of acreage.

 

[Basil]

"Stack of books with legs" makes Kirk sound more introverted and studious than the cocky, jocky figure Pine creates, and early Kirk in TOS certainly reflected this approach. Making Kirk a "genius" just shorthands the story so that we can gloss over his actual academy days and assume most of his courses were a breeze, as will be his rapid ascent through the ranks.

I'd prefer the approach where Kirk is above average in intelligence but had to work harder than others, thus helping him to acquire personal discipline and a sense of persepective about how to employ what he learned that sets him apart from more gifted classmates. He'd be like Spud Webb in the NBA, who without the advantage of an extra foot in height, had to compete harder and better just to keep up. That makes him more interesting than the 7-foot knuckledragger who has the distinct advantage. Of course, this movie is aimed at GEN-Y, and they're all exceptional, as the bumper stickers demonstrate.

 

[indranee]

Captain Fine, that is very reassuring; thanks!

M'Sharak, I'm assuming the way the 20-point scenario works against the bouncer is that since he's the top, he only has the 20 points below him range to work with.

Most of us would have a 20-point range above and below; i.e., a 40-point range. Even for geniuses. So that includes a lot of acreage.

so what are the odds of a co-worker of his being 20 points above or below his level? it must be a lonely existence for him... at least for those 8 or so hours at work.

I don't subscribe to this theory at all. I also don't think a genius level should be that low. for chrissakes, my IQ was rated at 144 and I am no genius. I think the bar needs to be higher.

 

[Ovation]

The word "genius" has been so abused in colloquial English that it has lost a lot of its meaning. I attended a school system that participated in a lengthy study (a twelve year period) of IQ tests and I took six of them during that time. I took two more as a participant in an educational psychology study. I also took courses in measurement and evaluation during my teaching degree in which we studied IQ tests at some length. From the age of 12 to 24, my IQ scores averaged at 142 (between 6 and 12 they were slightly higher).

Does that make me a genius? Well, by one measurement standard, it does. The score of 140 is the cutoff in many standard scales--not because it means such a score makes one an Einstein, but rather because it indicates a cutoff above which very few people, in the general population, consistently score. The label "genius" was attached to that cutoff a very long time ago (in the days when "moron" and "idiot" were actual categories separated on the scale by about 5 IQ points). It does not, however, mean I will make a lasting contribution to society that will be remembered centuries from now.

Modern understanding of intelligence, however, does not rest merely on a simple number. There are all sorts of measures of intelligence (some more dubious than others) and they are not all focused on academic ability. Beyond that, the designation "genius" doesn't really carry much weight anymore as it has been used indiscriminately to describe a variety of things that are not especially related to the concept.

So what does a high IQ, traditionally measured, mean? Not nearly as much as some people think and a bit more than others think. It is NOT a guarantee of success at any endeavour--academic or otherwise. It is certainly not an indication that one is a better person than any other (except in a very narrowly defined sense to which I'll come in a moment). What a higher IQ amounts to, in the end, is a facility in learning relative to the general population. Complex ideas and topics are relatively easier to absorb correctly. However, as I've seen in my 20 years as an educator, at just about every level between pre-K and undergraduate, people with higher IQs are a bit more prone to laziness (believing that if many things come easily, all things will) which often cancels any advantage they might have over someone with a lower IQ. In fact, it is not uncommon for such people to become overly discouraged when encountering something that does not come as easily. And even if someone with a higher IQ has an advantage in academic areas, it is no guarantee of an equal advantage in non-academic areas.

When debates about "genius" arise, and the word is not being used in an overly casual fashion, people often have in mind "super-geniuses"--with scores well above the cutoff of 140. Such people are very rare and they are the type who are exceptionally intelligent. Having a high IQ is akin to having an artistic talent or a good musical ear or a good singing voice and so on. It is a talent that, properly utilized, can yield many rewards. But talent alone rarely suffices to succeed. It still requires discipline and effort.