Regarding our Supergenius intelligence statistic (Staff only)

[Antvasima]

Hello.

The entire point of our Supergenius intelligence rating is that it should be extremely hard to reach, and require the ability to create an extreme variety of equipment that can essentially warp reality in any way that a character wants to on an absolutely massive infinite scale, including via time manipulation, in order to significantly set it apart from the Extraordinary Genius rating.

However, currently the bar has been set far too low, with a finite minimum that does not even incorporate affecting linear time on a universal scale, meaning 3-A.

As such, I request that we modify our minimum standards to Low 2-C in that regard. It will not affect the vast majority of the current characters with the rating, but will prevent spam of highly unqualified entries that set a very bad precedent.


STAFF ONLY

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

I would greatly appreciate your help here.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Do we gain literally anything from this besides an arbitrary divide?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Even if the bar is "low", how many characters actually even have this rating? I don't think it's a lot but I could be wrong, I just don't see many people trying to apply it randomly to characters.

 

[Antvasima]

Do we gain literally anything from this besides an arbitrary divide?

There is nothing arbitrary about this change, as I explicitly stated above, so I do not appreciate your interference here.

The entire point of the concept is that Supergeniuses should be able to warp reality any way they wish with a wide variety of inventions, on an at least base level infinite scale, including retroactively affecting universal space-time continuums, and the current minimum limit that Impress applied does not reflect that and allows for unqualified spam.

 

[Antvasima]

Even if the bar is "low", how many characters actually even have this rating? I don't think it's a lot but I could be wrong, I just don't see many people trying to apply it randomly to characters.

It just happened in a Bleach thread, and I want our system to be as airtight as possible regarding potentially allowing lots of unqualified entries based on bad technicalities.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with raising the bar as there are far too many characters I can think who qualify for extraordinary genius but everybody keeps pushing it all the way to supergenius. Or heck, I have debated with people who think merely having "Millenia of experience" alone warrants supergenius. Low 2-C sounds like a more appropriate baseline and that they need some hax variety to go with it and the reality warping tier should be something the character in question is capable of crafting on a casual basis. If it takes lengthy periods and/or someone needs some kind of McGuffin or UES as a fuel source, it would only be Extraordinary Genius at best.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for your support.

 

[Lonkitt]

Just because a lot of people push for it doesn’t mean the bar is too low. About a billion people argue for Tier 1 everyday. That’s just kinda in the nature of high ratings at times. We’re staff, we can handle correcting people on that kind of stuff

Even if more characters are Supergenius than before now, it’s still a rating BARELY ever seen in our pages. I don’t think the bar is too low at all

 

[M3X_2.0]

It just happened in a Bleach thread, and I want our system to be as airtight as possible regarding potentially allowing lots of unqualified entries based on bad technicalities.

Question: What if after we update the standard to Low 2-C users still try push the rating for a lot of characters, what would you do?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, the bar isn't the only issue; though to be fair I'm surprised Low 2-C wasn't the decided baseline in the first place given warping space-time on a universal scale would be Low 2-C and there'd be nothing to middle down to 3-A. But a character needs to casually be more than capable of crafting the universal reality warping stuff. Which most people getting pushed try to do it for characters who require vast time frames and/or use of foreign power sources. And pretty sure Bleach wasn't the first example, but it's mostly various DC characters whom fans have pushed.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Being honest other than higher dimensional stuff I don't see a big difference between being smart enough to make a machine to fundamental change a universal 3D space and a universal 4D space other than one involving another axis.

As for the rating there's only something like 300-400 characters with that, which isn't a weirdly large fraction of the Genius rating characters.

 

[Antvasima]

As I stated above, the bar is currently set at a finite scale that can not even affect time, which does not remotely fit with the fundamental intention with the tier of being able to warp reality in almost any way one wishes. That is inherently self-contradictory and mixes together characters of too extremely different capabilities.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm surprised Low 2-C wasn't the decided baseline in the first place

It was a serious mistake, yes.

 

[Deagonx]

We can also make the wording more thorough overall, in addition to this change, to ensure we avoid the types of misunderstandings occurring in the Bleach thread.

I agree with the proposal.

 

[Qawsedf234]

That is inherently self-contradictory and mixes together characters of too extremely different capabilities.

Its not self-contradictory in my view.

If your complaint is that the definition better fits Tier 2 than 3, that's fine. But you're overhyping the problem here in my view. There's nothing wrong with someone arguing that a character making a machine that effects an entire universe wouldn't be supergenius.

 

[Antvasima]

If your complaint is that the definition better fits Tier 2 than 3, that's fine.

That is the case, yes. Warping reality in essentially any way one wishes via inventions should per definition involve an at least base infinite scale as well as significantly affecting the structure of a timeline.

Otherwise we will mix together characters with finite capabilities that cannot affect even linear time, with those of infinite capabilities that can at the very least significantly affect entire universal space-time continuums.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't believe that people pushing for certain characters to qualify is a reason to change the standards, as that's just something that comes with the territory of higher tier stuff. If they qualify, they qualify. If they don't, they just don't. Simple as that.

What I'm most interested in, though, is the original intent of Supergeniuses being able to easily warp reality in every way with their creations. If this is the case, I'm fine with changing up the requirements. In addition, I do like the idea of Supergeniuses being exclusively those that can warp higher dimensions (4-D and up) with their tech, though admittedly that's more of a personal take than anything.

So yeah, I think overall I'm in agreement with the OP at the moment.

 

[Antvasima]

What I'm most interested in, though, is the original intent of Supergeniuses being able to easily warp reality in every way with their creations. If this is the case, I'm fine with changing up the requirements. In addition, I do like the idea of Supergeniuses being exclusively those that can warp higher dimensions (4-D and up) with their tech, though admittedly that's more of a personal take than anything.

So yeah, I think overall I'm in agreement with the OP at the moment.

Thank you very much for your support. That is the main reason for this revision, yes. I find our current standards self-contradictory.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm generally not much of a fan of tying intelligence to the tier of technology, as IMO it mostly comes down to how good of a fuel source you have at some point, rather than how clever your device is.
That being said, I can accept Low 2-C as a cut-off point specifically because it is about a device that can manipulate reality at large, involving space and time, rather than just a stronger energy weapon.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm generally not much of a fan of tying intelligence to the tier of technology, as IMO it mostly comes down to how good of a fuel source you have at some point, rather than how clever your device is.

Agreed, but a combination of scale and sheer versatility seemed like the most reliable/least unreliable available scaling option, given our own much more limited real world human intelligence.

That being said, I can accept Low 2-C as a cut-off point specifically because it is about a device that can manipulate reality at large, involving space and time, rather than just a stronger energy weapon.

Thank you very much for your support.

 

[Flashlight237]

Reading through this, while I can understand the support for the change, I do believe we're all forgetting that intelligence is more than just how well people can build or use technology. Heck, Albert Einstein is believed to be one of the smartest people ever and I don't think he ever really built any tech. Because of this, I recommend that you at least try to explore the bigger picture of intelligence. Like, for example, many gods who have created entire realities on their own did not need technology; just their own will.

 

[Antvasima]

Carefully crafting the structures of entire realities through a combination of intelligence and power, rather than just wishing them into existence without any indepth knowledge of the actual procedure, can also qualify as Supergenius intelligence, yes. We scaled Tsunami and Tokimi of Tenchi Muyo based on this, for example.

Perhaps we should better clarify this as well?

 

[Flashlight237]

Carefully crafting the structures of entire realities through a combination of intelligence and power, rather than just wishing them into existence without any indepth knowledge of the actual procedure, can also qualify as Supergenius intelligence, yes. We scaled Tsunami and Tokimi of Tenchi Muyo based on this, for example.

Perhaps we should better clarify this as well?

Yeah, that would be a good idea. Another thing that I'd like clarified in a case like this is the awareness of higher realities or even the knowledge of specific locations in said higher reality (in the context of getting more detailed, like finding exoplanets orbiting some random star), like for example... Someone from Earth 616 being well aware of the existence of higher realities such as Overspace and its inhabitants and locales.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I do not think that we should scale intelligence from cosmic awareness alone.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think the concept is basically arbitrary, as what we call a level of intelligence doesn't really change how intelligent a feat makes you. Still, of it'd make you feel better, I don't find myself actively opposed. Do you already have a list of affected pages in mind?

 

[Flashlight237]

Well, I do not think that we should scale intelligence from cosmic awareness alone.

Which I perfectly understand given anything beyond what we humans already created is purely speculative. Though I personally see the idea as subjective myself; I neither find myself fully qualifying for, or fully disqualifying against cosmic awareness as a qualification.

 

[Firestorm808]

To clarify, you are saying the range of the reality-warping devices created for SG should be at least 1 timeline?

 

[Armorchompy]

Carefully crafting the structures of entire realities through a combination of intelligence and power, rather than just wishing them into existence without any indepth knowledge of the actual procedure, can also qualify as Supergenius intelligence, yes. We scaled Tsunami and Tokimi of Tenchi Muyo based on this, for example.

Would you say that being capable of observing and comprehending things of such massive size also counts? I have a character that is capable of witnessing and analyzing an infinite set of rebooting timelines, which is something they explicitly say humans are not capable of doing, and will be drawn to madness by, but he can because his mind is capable of greater feats of intelligence.

 

[CloverDragon03]

To clarify, you are saying the range of the reality-warping devices created for SG should be at least 1 timeline?

Pretty much, yeah. Ant is saying it needs to affect the whole space-time continuum

 

[Antvasima]

To clarify, you are saying the range of the reality-warping devices created for SG should be at least 1 timeline?

Well, there should essentially be a combination of at least Low 2-C scale and amazingly extreme versatility for the sum total invention production.

I think the concept is basically arbitrary, as what we call a level of intelligence doesn't really change how intelligent a feat makes you. Still, of it'd make you feel better, I don't find myself actively opposed. Do you already have a list of affected pages in mind?

No, but I do not think that a lot of our current pages with Supergenius statistics will be affected. I am mainly attempting to fix a previous contradiction that can be used as a loophole.

 

[Antvasima]

Would you say that being capable of observing and comprehending things of such massive size also counts? I have a character that is capable of witnessing and analyzing an infinite set of rebooting timelines, which is something they explicitly say humans are not capable of doing, and will be drawn to madness by, but he can because his mind is capable of greater feats of intelligence.

That seems to qualify, yes, if the character truly indepth understands all of the information.

 

[Armorchompy]

Think so, but regardless I think that's good to know in a general sense

 

[Crabwhale]

My thoughts on this echo Lonkitt's. This is extra work for very little gain.

You've always been weirdly elitist about this particular section of our Intelligence page Ant. I would please ask to not let it seep into actual wiki wide revisions in the future. I don't think it benefits us.

 

[Armorchompy]

I've always felt like Supergenius wasn't handled very well, personally. I frankly think its existence is more deleterious than beneficial, considering how much debate is had about its standards.

 

[Tllmbrg]

My main issue with it is that it just shows an extreme bias towards a specific section of intelligence (That being science)
I understand that extraordinary vs supergenius in say combat is probably not something we care to do, but idk why even have an intelligence rating for 1 specific type of it

 

[DarkGrath]

I don't even understand why this specific notion of intelligence is being considered as a standard in the first place. In a vacuum, creating a specific kind of technology isn't necessarily indicative of a particular level of intelligence.

To illustrate - how intelligent would a modern day mechanic, working off of years of theory and execution that they've been formally taught, have to be to build a car? Building a car isn't trivial, of course, but I wouldn't consider this anything too unreasonable or unrealistic, owing to the kinds of resources someone in that position would have. On the other hand, how intelligent would a neanderthal from prehistory, working off of nothing but their own experimentation, have to be to build a car? That would be considerably more impressive, and a much greater showing of intelligence.

Two people creating the exact same technology can, in the process, be demonstrating far different levels of intelligence. So when we say that 'Supergenius' intelligence involves being able to invent technology with effects that reach an infinite scale and which possesses time manipulation capacities, what do we actually mean by this? Would someone working off of years of formal education into similar technology with strict instruction manuals into the different aspects of the machinery qualify? Would someone have to have built it from scratch with the kinds of education and resources available at the dawn of civilisation to qualify? Or are we saying it should be some threshold in-between?

If you ask me, it just seems like an arbitrary metric. I know all too well how difficult it is to measure 'intelligence', but I think we can do better than this.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't even understand why this specific notion of intelligence is being considered as a standard in the first place. In a vacuum, creating a specific kind of technology isn't necessarily indicative of a particular level of intelligence.

To illustrate - how intelligent would a modern day mechanic, working off of years of theory and execution that they've been formally taught, have to be to build a car? Building a car isn't trivial, of course, but I wouldn't consider this anything too unreasonable or unrealistic, owing to the kinds of resources someone in that position would have. On the other hand, how intelligent would a neanderthal from prehistory, working off of nothing but their own experimentation, have to be to build a car? That would be considerably more impressive, and a much greater showing of intelligence.

Two people creating the exact same technology can, in the process, be demonstrating far different levels of intelligence. So when we say that 'Supergenius' intelligence involves being able to invent technology with effects that reach an infinite scale and which possesses time manipulation capacities, what do we actually mean by this? Would someone working off of years of formal education into similar technology with strict instruction manuals into the different aspects of the machinery qualify? Would someone have to have built it from scratch with the kinds of education and resources available at the dawn of civilisation to qualify? Or are we saying it should be some threshold in-between?

If you ask me, it just seems like an arbitrary metric. I know all too well how difficult it is to measure 'intelligence', but I think we can do better than this.

Ah, yes, I remember why we didn't have standardized intelligence ratings for a long time. Honestly, we maybe should put a note (again?) that the justifications generally supersede the rankings.

What you are pointing out here is essentially that there are different kinds of intelligence. A caveman building a 1930 level car vs an engineer building a modern car is in so far interesting that the former demonstrates more intellectual talent, while the latter might still perform better in any practical scenario. For our intelligence rating education is certainly not irrelevant, yet we probably also don't want 30th century regular human to all be ranked as genius.
Separating talent and education is of course often impossible at that.

One could also consider to place a note about resources. Like e.g. building a reality warping device from a reality warping gem is not that impressive, compared to doing it without such a thing. But that probably goes beyond the confines of what this thread is about...

 

[DarkGrath]

Ah, yes, I remember why we didn't have standardized intelligence ratings for a long time. Honestly, we maybe should put a note (again?) that the justifications generally supersede the rankings.

What you are pointing out here is essentially that there are different kinds of intelligence. A caveman building a 1930 level car vs an engineer building a modern car is in so far interesting that the former demonstrates more intellectual talent, while the latter might still perform better in any practical scenario. For our intelligence rating education is certainly not irrelevant, yet we probably also don't want 30th century regular human to all be ranked as genius.
Separating talent and education is of course often impossible at that.

One could also consider to place a note about resources. Like e.g. building a reality warping device from a reality warping gem is not that impressive, compared to doing it without such a thing. But that probably goes beyond the confines of what this thread is about...

I don't intend to go on a tangent about what our intelligence metrics 'should' be based on. There's certainly a discussion to be had there, but it's not the topic of this thread.

All I intend to say is that our intelligence metrics 'shouldn't' be based on what has been suggested in the OP. I don't even think adding a note about resources is a satisfactory compromise - it's just strange and arbitrary to denote that a particular level of intelligence can only be reached by an extremely specific method that we prescribe to it. Even more so when, as shown, what that method says about someone's intelligence changes with the context it occurs in.

 

[Antvasima]

My main issue with it is that it just shows an extreme bias towards a specific section of intelligence (That being science)
I understand that extraordinary vs supergenius in say combat is probably not something we care to do, but idk why even have an intelligence rating for 1 specific type of it

Well, we can expand the section with other very extreme examples as well, such as the ones mentioned by Armorchompy and Flashlight above, but the possible overfocus on science stems from that it is easier to conceptually quantify in thIs manner, and I am not ideologically opposed to creating an intelligence rating between Extraordinary Genius and Supergenius if somebody comes up with a very good definition and title for it.