6 ms·

"I don’t want to sound egotistical here, I don’t think that I am beyond the knee of this curve and I don’t know anyone who is." I'm always so surprised when I

"I don’t want to sound egotistical here, I don’t think that I am beyond the knee of this curve and I don’t know anyone who is." I'm always so surprised when I read such statements from extraordinary people. Why the hell would Shannon of all people have such a distorted view of himself? Is this just hypocrisy, a kind of fake humility, or do most geniuses think they are average?

asgeir 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
alexanderdmitri 9y ago
I don't know if this answers your question, but I'd say a great deal of intellectual strength can be derived from acknowledging the depth of our ignorance in the first place. Shannon seems to be getting at this in his descriptions of dissatisfaction and drive. On somewhat of a tangent, in many ways science and creativity are fundamentally opposed. Science requires constant, humble resignation to reality. And, though creativity may work within the confines of reality, I'd say it tends to have a more rebellious attitude. Shannon doesn't explicitly say it, but he's definitely getting at the fact that the greatest intellectuals manage to excel at both somehow and I think his suggestions at problems solving are an attempt to give a potential equation for doing so. All that aside I think your question has more to do with Shannon's personality than his intellectual achievements and I'm sure his personality type can be found evenly distributed across the population's IQ range.
meri_dian 9y ago
I believe it's genuine. Many geniuses have had the attitude that there are other factors at play in their success, like passion or drive. Perfectionism combined with high passion can push you to great lengths.
ThomPete 9y ago
He is judging himself in a different perspective than most people. And so not only is he genuine he is right.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
shanusmagnus 9y ago
I think it's a natural consequence of being really smart and knowing a lot about some field. If you know a lot about some field, you become extremely aware both of all the things that you don't know that you wish you knew about that field. If you're really smart you probably affiliate with a lot of other people who are really smart. You also have a sense of how much these smart folks know that you can barely fathom. It's not an ironclad relationship, of course, but an awful lot of the smartest people I know are humbler than an awful lot of the idiots that I know, and that's my current working hypothesis as to why.
deepnet 9y ago
Understanding Shannon's lack of hubris in this essay requires some context. Shannon places Isaac Newton & Alan Turing above the curve, so it a very high bar. This is Shannon writing at age 36, still at Bell labs producing practical work for the military, often classified and mostly on crypto. His seminal memorandum 'A practical Theory of Communication' had begun circulating only 4 years earlier and it's full impact was not yet apparent.
unabst 9y ago
> distorted view of himself What would be the correct view then? To be saying, "I am a genius"? But who says that and is ever a genius? I think the point is, there is no such thing. Genius is a reputation, and an overblown one at that, but justified by context, such as being the best out of a group of people. What we should be more concerned about is how ordinary people go on to achieve extraordinary feats. We're all human with given the same amount of time in a day. Saying some are genius and are exceptions to normalcy is a cop out. Like the rumor that Bill Gates and Elon Musk both have photographic memories. Turns out, there is no such thing as a photographic memory. There are techniques to memorization, but they don't seem to be doing those either. It's shocking I know, but they're normal people.

asgeir 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome

alexanderdmitri 9y ago

I don't know if this answers your question, but I'd say a great deal of intellectual strength can be derived from acknowledging the depth of our ignorance in the first place. Shannon seems to be getting at this in his descriptions of dissatisfaction and drive. On somewhat of a tangent, in many ways science and creativity are fundamentally opposed. Science requires constant, humble resignation to reality. And, though creativity may work within the confines of reality, I'd say it tends to have a more rebellious attitude. Shannon doesn't explicitly say it, but he's definitely getting at the fact that the greatest intellectuals manage to excel at both somehow and I think his suggestions at problems solving are an attempt to give a potential equation for doing so. All that aside I think your question has more to do with Shannon's personality than his intellectual achievements and I'm sure his personality type can be found evenly distributed across the population's IQ range.

meri_dian 9y ago

I believe it's genuine. Many geniuses have had the attitude that there are other factors at play in their success, like passion or drive. Perfectionism combined with high passion can push you to great lengths.

ThomPete 9y ago

He is judging himself in a different perspective than most people. And so not only is he genuine he is right.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

shanusmagnus 9y ago

I think it's a natural consequence of being really smart and knowing a lot about some field. If you know a lot about some field, you become extremely aware both of all the things that you don't know that you wish you knew about that field. If you're really smart you probably affiliate with a lot of other people who are really smart. You also have a sense of how much these smart folks know that you can barely fathom. It's not an ironclad relationship, of course, but an awful lot of the smartest people I know are humbler than an awful lot of the idiots that I know, and that's my current working hypothesis as to why.

deepnet 9y ago

Understanding Shannon's lack of hubris in this essay requires some context. Shannon places Isaac Newton & Alan Turing above the curve, so it a very high bar. This is Shannon writing at age 36, still at Bell labs producing practical work for the military, often classified and mostly on crypto. His seminal memorandum 'A practical Theory of Communication' had begun circulating only 4 years earlier and it's full impact was not yet apparent.

unabst 9y ago

> distorted view of himself What would be the correct view then? To be saying, "I am a genius"? But who says that and is ever a genius? I think the point is, there is no such thing. Genius is a reputation, and an overblown one at that, but justified by context, such as being the best out of a group of people. What we should be more concerned about is how ordinary people go on to achieve extraordinary feats. We're all human with given the same amount of time in a day. Saying some are genius and are exceptions to normalcy is a cop out. Like the rumor that Bill Gates and Elon Musk both have photographic memories. Turns out, there is no such thing as a photographic memory. There are techniques to memorization, but they don't seem to be doing those either. It's shocking I know, but they're normal people.