3 ms·

Why? This statement is certainly true. You can expand the range of people with any plausible contribution until it's not, but doing so would be an ideological

by jraines 11y ago

Why? This statement is certainly true. You can expand the range of people with any plausible contribution until it's not, but doing so would be an ideological exercise at best. Von Neumann, Shannon, Turing, Weiner, Hopper and many more, on through Wozniak, Torvalds, I could go on and on. There's nothing wrong with calling extraordinary intellect what it is.

danans 11y ago
I think the objection isn't that those people didn't make huge and transformative contributions to the field. Rather, it is the tone set by the use of the worshippy word "genius", which has a murky, and totally relative definition, and the phrase "unusual cognitive ability", which implies that their abilities uniquely set these people apart from others who we don't worship in the same way. Uncounted numbers people have fully understood, and often expanded beyond, the discoveries of Von Neumann, Shannon, Turing etc., since their times, and even more probably had the innate ability to do so, but no access. Thousands of others have demonstrated the scrappy self-startedness of Wozniak and Torvalds, but without the societal setting and geographic luck that allowed those individuals to succeed. Given the significant role that one's environment plays in one's success, these people as individuals aren't in themselves unusual. What's unusual is that they were people with the right characteristics, in the right circumstances, and the right support systems. Basically, extraordinary intellect isn't as unusual or consequential as that sentence from the article implies.
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
  Some people run faster than others, some people think better. This is not worship, merely the celebration of the best intellectual performers.
  - danans 11y ago
    Sure, but the question is whether by celebrating those individuals so much, we exaggerate their uniqueness, and we understate the role that their circumstances played in their performance, whether intellectual or physical.
Retric 11y ago
You could probably name 1,000 people that made significant contributions to the computer field, but that 1,000 had less impact than everyone else put together especially when you ignore fashion. AKA If we lost Linux, but kept BSD then not much would have changed.

by jraines 11y ago

danans 11y ago

I think the objection isn't that those people didn't make huge and transformative contributions to the field. Rather, it is the tone set by the use of the worshippy word "genius", which has a murky, and totally relative definition, and the phrase "unusual cognitive ability", which implies that their abilities uniquely set these people apart from others who we don't worship in the same way. Uncounted numbers people have fully understood, and often expanded beyond, the discoveries of Von Neumann, Shannon, Turing etc., since their times, and even more probably had the innate ability to do so, but no access. Thousands of others have demonstrated the scrappy self-startedness of Wozniak and Torvalds, but without the societal setting and geographic luck that allowed those individuals to succeed. Given the significant role that one's environment plays in one's success, these people as individuals aren't in themselves unusual. What's unusual is that they were people with the right characteristics, in the right circumstances, and the right support systems. Basically, extraordinary intellect isn't as unusual or consequential as that sentence from the article implies.

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
Some people run faster than others, some people think better. This is not worship, merely the celebration of the best intellectual performers.
- danans 11y ago
  Sure, but the question is whether by celebrating those individuals so much, we exaggerate their uniqueness, and we understate the role that their circumstances played in their performance, whether intellectual or physical.

Retric 11y ago

You could probably name 1,000 people that made significant contributions to the computer field, but that 1,000 had less impact than everyone else put together especially when you ignore fashion. AKA If we lost Linux, but kept BSD then not much would have changed.