8 ms·

Exploring the nature of genius

64 points by acconrad 6y ago

kordlessagain 6y ago
> If Mozart could hear in his head how the music ought to go, Leonardo, judging from his sketches, could simply see in his mind’s eye how the machine should work or the painting should look. There seems to be some thing that allows creative construction of these things, in mind, as opposed to simple recall of the sounds or images, in mind. For example, Mozart might have been able to creatively "construct" the sound of his composures in his mind, but just because someone has heard a Mozart composure performed and then can recall it later, in mind, that fact doesn't make them a genius. It's both creating and hearing/seeing it first that makes it special.
- rawoke083600 6y ago
  Ja that is kinda a cool way to think about it. It's like they had a better ability to "simulate" the model/music/problem in their mind. By "better" one can argue it was faster, more accurate and more detailed.
  - kordlessagain 6y ago
    Excellent point about what is "better". Being faster, more accurate and more detailed is the "map" problem, where efficiency and interestingness intersect. My theory is this is how animals arrive at consciousness.
ip26 6y ago
I would exhort everyone to read through to the end first.
username90 6y ago
> he quant types (mathematics and science majors) thought genius was due to natural gifts; parents and teachers had told them that they’d been born with a special talent for quantitative reasoning. I don't think this is because people told them anything. To anyone who is good at maths it is painfully obvious that some people get it much easier than others. I started out thinking that people just did it wrongly, but the more I tried and the more I watched people do things the more I realized that they simply were bad at maths. There is nothing I can do for them. Some people just lack practice and motivation, true, but most lacks the brains to do it, since you need to have at least some level of intuition and some level of rational reasoning capacity to get anywhere in maths. For those who disagree, how do you explain the very large number of people who spends tons of time and energy trying to get good at maths but fails to even grasp simple concepts like calculus? Contrast that with the much smaller but still considerable number of people who aren't really passionate about maths, don't put in the work yet still aces the class? Many on the "nurture is everything" side simply believes that those differences doesn't exist, the "geniuses" must have learned this beforehand or something else silly. But if you are one of those who aced the classes without even trying and see others try really really hard and still don't even pass, how could you explain that without considering talent as a variable? That person doesn't need to be told that talent is important.
- antegamisou 6y ago
  Not that you're making bad points, but there's a big difference in acing a math exam vs actually assimilating the various underlying concepts, at least at a university level IME. I know plenty of people who would pass as 'geniuses' by your definition that just cram past problems and get high grades. And honestly if you've been to college you'd know that it's almost impossible for a novel problem you've never encountered before show up on an test. A lot of otherwise intelligent people fairly despise such practices so they adopt inefficient studying habits , failing to complete a set syllabus and achieving subpar results.
  - username90 6y ago
    I didn't say people who ace math exams are geniuses, just that maths makes it very clear that talent is a huge factor for success in the field. So it isn't that STEM students were all told by their parents that they are intelligent and therefore believe that genius is about talent, it is that it is pretty hard to study STEM without noticing the huge difference in talent between people in the field.
    - antegamisou 6y ago
      > talent is a huge factor for success in the field. Success in the field as in research? Most certainly so. However I think you're overestimating the 'math IQ' of STEM (under)grads especially considering the large discrepancy among its different subfields. Engineering students (EE/ME/Civil) are systematically 'dumber' maths-wise compared to their science (Maths [duh] or Physics) counterparts. Still, it's quite likely that you do not have to be a genius to be successful at landing a highly-paid, mentally-challenging related job. About parenting, smart math kids may not have had their egos boosted however their parents almost certainly exposed them to science from an early age. This holds true especially for children coming from 'STEM families'.
      - username90 6y ago
        > Still, it's quite likely that you do not have to be a genius to be successful at landing a highly-paid, mentally-challenging related job. I never said otherwise. However you can't be dumb to land those jobs.
thewarrior 6y ago
This is a good piece that goes into the complexity of the idea of Genius. We’re taking individuals who’ve had a large impact on society and then saying that this is caused by some hidden factor called genius. We then ask if this genius is present in all of us or can it be developed. Now this obviously has a lot of limitations. I doubt my own opinions on genius will have much credibility given I’m not not one. But studying geniuses it seems to me that developing an intuition for the subject is what truly sets them apart. Einstein had the impact he did because somehow he knew what areas to work on. In the sea of confusion and subjects floating around at the time he zeroed in on Brownian motion, Relativity, Photoelectric effect and Lasers. Any one of these is enough to go down in history as one of the greats. I have a friend who’s extremely intelligent. What I’m often surprised by is the speed of thinking. It seems way too quick to be the result of any rational deliberation. Kind of reminds of the policy and value networks in alpha go. Their brains are wired to search much more effectively through the search space. The other aspect is meta cognition. They understand their own abilities and how they improve . Which means they are able to train themselves with an efficiency we cannot.
- thethought 6y ago
  >>> Kind of reminds of the policy and value networks in alpha go. What is alpha go? Is it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo ?
  - zx14 6y ago
    Yes.
mynameishere 6y ago
To mention something he left out: first mover advantage. Consider the great number of geniuses in tiny, mostly-illiterate Ancient Greece, for instance. Consider the simplicity of Beethoven's fifth symphony's motif, or Dijkstra's algorithm. You have to be there first. (It's not that simple, natch...) This rankles though: ...no absolute pitch – all things very necessary to a professional performer I wonder why someone with so much musical education would think that.
Exuma 6y ago
Does anyone else feel like you're at a weird in between with intelligence? I have been developer for 15 years, and have probably put in over 15-20K hours of very heavy learning. I've produced well over 100 projects, and have had some very huge wins. I have an absurd work ethic. In my small peer group, people constantly talk about "youre smartest person I know" and this makes me somewhat cringe on the inside, because in my mind.. the people who _I_ consider are actual geniuses, who have such an insane otherworldly level of learning ability, math ability, talent, programming ability (ie like John Carmack). So, I constantly am called smart, smartest, etc, yet in my own head I often feel incredibly dumb because of the people who I look up to, and don't even remotely hold a candle to. It feels like being stuck in a sort of no man's land... where I have enough IQ to realize how little IQ I have. I always feel like certain subjects often lie JUST outside my mental grasp and I must spend considerable effort to visualize it before I can understand it. For example, I'm starting to build an algorithm for trading and it involves bayesian statistics, and calculus, linear algebra, with a dash of machine learning. All things which have long been forgotten. I spent about 60-70 hours over a few days re-learning a lot, and making huge strides in understanding, feeling pretty good I just got such a huge chunk of learning done quickly, and then I go on youtube videos of math geniuses who probably accomplished what I did effortlessly in the blink of an eye. I suppose I have no other question, other than does anyone else feel like this? It really kind of sucks, as I do highly value intelligence, and it would be different if I weren't 1/4 or 1/2 of the way there.
- username90 6y ago
  It is relative, many people who never attended college thinks that all engineers and doctors are geniuses. If you were less talented you'd likely call the current you a genius as well. If you were more talented maybe you wouldn't consider Carmack a genius, who knows? He probably doesn't consider himself a genius at least, he can point to the likes of Einstein and Newton and say that he is very lacking in comparison.
  - randcraw 6y ago
    Not genius. What you're describing is the difference between a problem and a mystery. If you have some basic skills in a domain, when a problem arises, you usually have some idea about how to solve at least part of the problem. But if you have no skills, every part of even the most basic problem is a mystery that you have no idea how to begin to solve. Then when you see someone solve your mystery, especially if they can do it adroitly, to you they appear to be a genius. Mystery solved. On that basis, a genius is someone who can solve a problem that other experts had no idea how to solve. A supergenius is someone who solves a problem that other experts didn't realize even existed. (AKA, they hit a target others could not see).
rramadass 6y ago
Genius = Various permutations of intensities of { Innate Talent, Hardwork, Imagination, Opportunity, Self Confidence, Curiosity, Environmental Context in Time } tipped over by "Chance".
- tartoran 6y ago
  Yes, sometimes all the needles tick in the right quadrants but other times not. There are plenty of tortured geniuses out there who had one extremly developed facet to the detriment of others, but did register as ‘genius’ after all. I wonder if inner happines is to ever be considered part of genius
  - randcraw 6y ago
    Apparently Shannon described genius as a response to discovering a source of irritation. If that's universally true of genius, then their ability to reduce their own irritation would imply increased personal happiness. If that irritation were shared by others, reducing it should increase happiness in others, throughout those afflicted. Certainly medical geniuses increase happiness to others through decreasing disease and the loss of happiness it causes. Don't artistic geniuses do something similar, by elevating their art form to new heights, instilling wonder and awe in their audiences? Perhaps increasing happiness in others is essential to genius. If the genius cares about others, that service to others ought to please themselves too. Of course, some examples of social psychopathy might also be called genius: Hitler, Stalin, Henry VIII, Pol Pot and many successful politicians possess(ed) a perverse genius for rising to power and wielding it effectively, often at great expense to the happiness of their people. These people did so much damage to so many lives, it's certain they cared little about the happiness of others, nor what their Machiavellianism said about themselves or their impact on history.
- andyxor 6y ago
  missing Popularity, Network Effects, Evangelism, Fashion, Trend, Marketing, Shoulders of Giants
  - 6y ago
playing_colours 6y ago
What does the latest research in neuroscience say about the nature of general intelligence, nature of talent and geniality? Are there any physical markers, I do not know, connections in the brain are established faster and more brain areas are triggered while thinking? Are there any more attempts to produce geniuses after famous László Polgár?
- randcraw 6y ago
  I can't speak to brain wiring, but we do know geniuses almost always share a number of distinctive behaviors: a capability for intense focus, persistence, passion for solving (or understanding) a problem, and the ability to learn efficiently and deeply. An inclination to think and work independently seems essential too. A disinterest in the opinion of others, a disinterest in pleasing others, especially those who don't share their perspective or priorities -- these are common traits. Excellent memory and the mastery (and advancement) of skills in the domain seem to be essential too. Probably that's where the 10,000 hours of practice comes in. And learning from exploring possibilities and testing whether each new idea or method does or does not add value, that's typical too. I think the brain wiring that enables these behaviors is what you seek. But I doubt we understand the brain well enough to suss out which wires enable which essential behavior.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Geniality is overrated. The masses have more fun, as evidenced by: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdo5WPsHM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdo5WPsHM8 FICKÄÄHN, FRÄSSÄÄÄHN, FÄRRRNSÄÄÄÄHN! EDIT: JETZT ERST RECHT!
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  Yo dawgs! SUP?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    Moar! Iz gotz karmaz 2 burrn!
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      F U 2!
camillovisini 6y ago
Studying Lenin's Brain: https://brain.mpg.de/institute/history/lenins-brain.html https://brain.mpg.de/institute/history/lenins-brain.html When Lenin died of a brain hemorrhage in 1924, his brain was preserved in formaldehyde, where it remained for two years. In 1926, [German physician and neurologist Oskar] Vogt was recruited by the Soviet government to help establish Lenin's genius via histological investigation of his brain. In 1927, Vogt gave a preliminary report on his findings in Moscow, concluding from his histological observations that Lenin must have been an athlete in associative thinking ("Assoziationsathlet") - a conclusion deemed farfetched by some of his neurologist colleagues and adversaries.
curation 6y ago
I had a high school teacher who used my IQ test results to justify my 'old soul' status enough to sexually assault me. As a working class person, most of my friends did not finish highschool or go to college and I did but I hated the people there. My father skipped to grades and got a full scholarship to the University of Toronto quit and joined the Hells Angels and died at 40. I found my groove (my partner is a finnish physicist) but the ability to read and think fast in the context of female and working class can be hell - at least in one's youth.
herewegoagain2 6y ago
It reads like a rationalization for being mediocre to me, to be honest. The definition of genius by "impact on society" is obviously wrong. And it's easy to selectively quote people who have something bad to say about a person to make them seem like awful people. Also doesn't seem rigorous: are ALL geniuses awful persons? That seems very unlikely. Especially as there may be geniuses in the field of being "good people".
rendall 6y ago
I know well the ex-wife and children of the inventor of an influential computer language. According to them, this language is his obsession to the exclusion of all else. They describe him as "an asshole". He habitually berated his children for not being passionate about anything. He is famous, but lost his family. I think about this fellow often, when I worry that I'm not fulfilling my potential. If genius means emotional misery for my family, then I am fine with more pedestrian accomplishments
- reasonabl_human 6y ago
  This resonated with me significantly. Thanks for the insight!
- svantana 6y ago
  We all have fairly similar hardware, brains don't vary that much between people. I think what unites a lot of "geniuses" is actually monomania. Whether it be athletes, scientists or musicians, being obsessed with a single activity will of course help you excel, but to the detriment of everything else in your life.
  - viztor 6y ago
    This sounds nice but is simply not true.
- slothtrop 6y ago
  Does it have to mean that?
  - randcraw 6y ago
    I suppose the answer to that is whether some 'geniuses' also are known for treating others well. As I recall, Shannon was described as a nice guy who seemed to care about others or at least respected their feelings. Perhaps technical genuises are better about this than artistic geniuses? I suspect the majority of genuii are self absorbed. Certainly that aspect of (mis)behavior is a mainstay of the genius stereotype. Or maybe that portrayal in movies is just the conceit of lazy scriptwriters...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WhompingWindows 6y ago
Interesting, but ultimately overly self-centered essay lacking real substance and evidence. 1. Gripe: Why do authors seek to write auto-biographical introductions? I count 5 full paragraphs of intro into this self-admitted "plodding" professor, who is not a genius, nor is he describing the "nature" of genius in those paragraphs. It comes off unnecessary and self-centered to write 5 paragraphs about yourself at the start of an essay on the nature of genius, does it not? 2. Mozart is held up as his first great example of Genius. Mozart had numerous advantages when young, though: he grew up in an intensely musical family, his brain was adapting to music in his first 3 years and then he was professionally trained beginning as a toddler. If you'd been playing piano for 3 years and your brain was specially adapted to it, yes you could be a wonder of Europe if you were also still only 5-6 at the time. The exponentially faster learning that young children exhibit is well known: their brains are extremely neuro-plastic. 3. Further down the essay, once more, a few autobiographical paragraphs about his class and Yale, and waxing poetic on gender discrepancies, not about geniuses. The essay seems to lack focus on the stated topic, the Nature of Genius, not the Nature of Yale or of the writers' life. 4. After more waxing poetic and little hard evidence except for cursory mentions of the famous geniuses, I find myself waiting for the simple point: genius is a social construct. We are all cooperatively working together, and geniuses are those who are labeled geniuses based upon the impact of their output. To explore the "nature" of genius is therefore a confluence of exploring psychology, human networks, history, and epistemology, and how socially geniuses excel inside the network of thought. 5. IMO, modern schooling is quite time-consuming and limiting. I find myself wondering, didn't the apprentice system where children had time to work on topics for a full decade longer, while younger, doesn't that aid in the creation of greatness? Rather than our painters painting from age 12, they don't begin working in earnest until age 22, up until which time their "work" consists of theoretical assignments, problem sets, and doesn't touch the real world applications which greatness necessitates.

64 points by acconrad 6y ago

> If Mozart could hear in his head how the music ought to go, Leonardo, judging from his sketches, could simply see in his mind’s eye how the machine should work or the painting should look. There seems to be some thing that allows creative construction of these things, in mind, as opposed to simple recall of the sounds or images, in mind. For example, Mozart might have been able to creatively "construct" the sound of his composures in his mind, but just because someone has heard a Mozart composure performed and then can recall it later, in mind, that fact doesn't make them a genius. It's both creating and hearing/seeing it first that makes it special.

rawoke083600 6y ago
Ja that is kinda a cool way to think about it. It's like they had a better ability to "simulate" the model/music/problem in their mind. By "better" one can argue it was faster, more accurate and more detailed.
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  Excellent point about what is "better". Being faster, more accurate and more detailed is the "map" problem, where efficiency and interestingness intersect. My theory is this is how animals arrive at consciousness.

ip26 6y ago

I would exhort everyone to read through to the end first.

username90 6y ago

> he quant types (mathematics and science majors) thought genius was due to natural gifts; parents and teachers had told them that they’d been born with a special talent for quantitative reasoning. I don't think this is because people told them anything. To anyone who is good at maths it is painfully obvious that some people get it much easier than others. I started out thinking that people just did it wrongly, but the more I tried and the more I watched people do things the more I realized that they simply were bad at maths. There is nothing I can do for them. Some people just lack practice and motivation, true, but most lacks the brains to do it, since you need to have at least some level of intuition and some level of rational reasoning capacity to get anywhere in maths. For those who disagree, how do you explain the very large number of people who spends tons of time and energy trying to get good at maths but fails to even grasp simple concepts like calculus? Contrast that with the much smaller but still considerable number of people who aren't really passionate about maths, don't put in the work yet still aces the class? Many on the "nurture is everything" side simply believes that those differences doesn't exist, the "geniuses" must have learned this beforehand or something else silly. But if you are one of those who aced the classes without even trying and see others try really really hard and still don't even pass, how could you explain that without considering talent as a variable? That person doesn't need to be told that talent is important.

antegamisou 6y ago
Not that you're making bad points, but there's a big difference in acing a math exam vs actually assimilating the various underlying concepts, at least at a university level IME. I know plenty of people who would pass as 'geniuses' by your definition that just cram past problems and get high grades. And honestly if you've been to college you'd know that it's almost impossible for a novel problem you've never encountered before show up on an test. A lot of otherwise intelligent people fairly despise such practices so they adopt inefficient studying habits , failing to complete a set syllabus and achieving subpar results.
- username90 6y ago
  I didn't say people who ace math exams are geniuses, just that maths makes it very clear that talent is a huge factor for success in the field. So it isn't that STEM students were all told by their parents that they are intelligent and therefore believe that genius is about talent, it is that it is pretty hard to study STEM without noticing the huge difference in talent between people in the field.
  - antegamisou 6y ago
    > talent is a huge factor for success in the field. Success in the field as in research? Most certainly so. However I think you're overestimating the 'math IQ' of STEM (under)grads especially considering the large discrepancy among its different subfields. Engineering students (EE/ME/Civil) are systematically 'dumber' maths-wise compared to their science (Maths [duh] or Physics) counterparts. Still, it's quite likely that you do not have to be a genius to be successful at landing a highly-paid, mentally-challenging related job. About parenting, smart math kids may not have had their egos boosted however their parents almost certainly exposed them to science from an early age. This holds true especially for children coming from 'STEM families'.
    - username90 6y ago
      > Still, it's quite likely that you do not have to be a genius to be successful at landing a highly-paid, mentally-challenging related job. I never said otherwise. However you can't be dumb to land those jobs.

thewarrior 6y ago

This is a good piece that goes into the complexity of the idea of Genius. We’re taking individuals who’ve had a large impact on society and then saying that this is caused by some hidden factor called genius. We then ask if this genius is present in all of us or can it be developed. Now this obviously has a lot of limitations. I doubt my own opinions on genius will have much credibility given I’m not not one. But studying geniuses it seems to me that developing an intuition for the subject is what truly sets them apart. Einstein had the impact he did because somehow he knew what areas to work on. In the sea of confusion and subjects floating around at the time he zeroed in on Brownian motion, Relativity, Photoelectric effect and Lasers. Any one of these is enough to go down in history as one of the greats. I have a friend who’s extremely intelligent. What I’m often surprised by is the speed of thinking. It seems way too quick to be the result of any rational deliberation. Kind of reminds of the policy and value networks in alpha go. Their brains are wired to search much more effectively through the search space. The other aspect is meta cognition. They understand their own abilities and how they improve . Which means they are able to train themselves with an efficiency we cannot.

thethought 6y ago
>>> Kind of reminds of the policy and value networks in alpha go. What is alpha go? Is it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo ?
- zx14 6y ago
  Yes.

mynameishere 6y ago

To mention something he left out: first mover advantage. Consider the great number of geniuses in tiny, mostly-illiterate Ancient Greece, for instance. Consider the simplicity of Beethoven's fifth symphony's motif, or Dijkstra's algorithm. You have to be there first. (It's not that simple, natch...) This rankles though: ...no absolute pitch – all things very necessary to a professional performer I wonder why someone with so much musical education would think that.

Exuma 6y ago

Does anyone else feel like you're at a weird in between with intelligence? I have been developer for 15 years, and have probably put in over 15-20K hours of very heavy learning. I've produced well over 100 projects, and have had some very huge wins. I have an absurd work ethic. In my small peer group, people constantly talk about "youre smartest person I know" and this makes me somewhat cringe on the inside, because in my mind.. the people who _I_ consider are actual geniuses, who have such an insane otherworldly level of learning ability, math ability, talent, programming ability (ie like John Carmack). So, I constantly am called smart, smartest, etc, yet in my own head I often feel incredibly dumb because of the people who I look up to, and don't even remotely hold a candle to. It feels like being stuck in a sort of no man's land... where I have enough IQ to realize how little IQ I have. I always feel like certain subjects often lie JUST outside my mental grasp and I must spend considerable effort to visualize it before I can understand it. For example, I'm starting to build an algorithm for trading and it involves bayesian statistics, and calculus, linear algebra, with a dash of machine learning. All things which have long been forgotten. I spent about 60-70 hours over a few days re-learning a lot, and making huge strides in understanding, feeling pretty good I just got such a huge chunk of learning done quickly, and then I go on youtube videos of math geniuses who probably accomplished what I did effortlessly in the blink of an eye. I suppose I have no other question, other than does anyone else feel like this? It really kind of sucks, as I do highly value intelligence, and it would be different if I weren't 1/4 or 1/2 of the way there.

username90 6y ago
It is relative, many people who never attended college thinks that all engineers and doctors are geniuses. If you were less talented you'd likely call the current you a genius as well. If you were more talented maybe you wouldn't consider Carmack a genius, who knows? He probably doesn't consider himself a genius at least, he can point to the likes of Einstein and Newton and say that he is very lacking in comparison.
- randcraw 6y ago
  Not genius. What you're describing is the difference between a problem and a mystery. If you have some basic skills in a domain, when a problem arises, you usually have some idea about how to solve at least part of the problem. But if you have no skills, every part of even the most basic problem is a mystery that you have no idea how to begin to solve. Then when you see someone solve your mystery, especially if they can do it adroitly, to you they appear to be a genius. Mystery solved. On that basis, a genius is someone who can solve a problem that other experts had no idea how to solve. A supergenius is someone who solves a problem that other experts didn't realize even existed. (AKA, they hit a target others could not see).

rramadass 6y ago

Genius = Various permutations of intensities of { Innate Talent, Hardwork, Imagination, Opportunity, Self Confidence, Curiosity, Environmental Context in Time } tipped over by "Chance".

tartoran 6y ago
Yes, sometimes all the needles tick in the right quadrants but other times not. There are plenty of tortured geniuses out there who had one extremly developed facet to the detriment of others, but did register as ‘genius’ after all. I wonder if inner happines is to ever be considered part of genius
- randcraw 6y ago
  Apparently Shannon described genius as a response to discovering a source of irritation. If that's universally true of genius, then their ability to reduce their own irritation would imply increased personal happiness. If that irritation were shared by others, reducing it should increase happiness in others, throughout those afflicted. Certainly medical geniuses increase happiness to others through decreasing disease and the loss of happiness it causes. Don't artistic geniuses do something similar, by elevating their art form to new heights, instilling wonder and awe in their audiences? Perhaps increasing happiness in others is essential to genius. If the genius cares about others, that service to others ought to please themselves too. Of course, some examples of social psychopathy might also be called genius: Hitler, Stalin, Henry VIII, Pol Pot and many successful politicians possess(ed) a perverse genius for rising to power and wielding it effectively, often at great expense to the happiness of their people. These people did so much damage to so many lives, it's certain they cared little about the happiness of others, nor what their Machiavellianism said about themselves or their impact on history.
andyxor 6y ago
missing Popularity, Network Effects, Evangelism, Fashion, Trend, Marketing, Shoulders of Giants
- 6y ago

playing_colours 6y ago

What does the latest research in neuroscience say about the nature of general intelligence, nature of talent and geniality? Are there any physical markers, I do not know, connections in the brain are established faster and more brain areas are triggered while thinking? Are there any more attempts to produce geniuses after famous László Polgár?

randcraw 6y ago
I can't speak to brain wiring, but we do know geniuses almost always share a number of distinctive behaviors: a capability for intense focus, persistence, passion for solving (or understanding) a problem, and the ability to learn efficiently and deeply. An inclination to think and work independently seems essential too. A disinterest in the opinion of others, a disinterest in pleasing others, especially those who don't share their perspective or priorities -- these are common traits. Excellent memory and the mastery (and advancement) of skills in the domain seem to be essential too. Probably that's where the 10,000 hours of practice comes in. And learning from exploring possibilities and testing whether each new idea or method does or does not add value, that's typical too. I think the brain wiring that enables these behaviors is what you seek. But I doubt we understand the brain well enough to suss out which wires enable which essential behavior.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Geniality is overrated. The masses have more fun, as evidenced by: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdo5WPsHM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdo5WPsHM8 FICKÄÄHN, FRÄSSÄÄÄHN, FÄRRRNSÄÄÄÄHN! EDIT: JETZT ERST RECHT!

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Yo dawgs! SUP?
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  Moar! Iz gotz karmaz 2 burrn!
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    F U 2!

camillovisini 6y ago

Studying Lenin's Brain: https://brain.mpg.de/institute/history/lenins-brain.html https://brain.mpg.de/institute/history/lenins-brain.html When Lenin died of a brain hemorrhage in 1924, his brain was preserved in formaldehyde, where it remained for two years. In 1926, [German physician and neurologist Oskar] Vogt was recruited by the Soviet government to help establish Lenin's genius via histological investigation of his brain. In 1927, Vogt gave a preliminary report on his findings in Moscow, concluding from his histological observations that Lenin must have been an athlete in associative thinking ("Assoziationsathlet") - a conclusion deemed farfetched by some of his neurologist colleagues and adversaries.

curation 6y ago

I had a high school teacher who used my IQ test results to justify my 'old soul' status enough to sexually assault me. As a working class person, most of my friends did not finish highschool or go to college and I did but I hated the people there. My father skipped to grades and got a full scholarship to the University of Toronto quit and joined the Hells Angels and died at 40. I found my groove (my partner is a finnish physicist) but the ability to read and think fast in the context of female and working class can be hell - at least in one's youth.

herewegoagain2 6y ago

It reads like a rationalization for being mediocre to me, to be honest. The definition of genius by "impact on society" is obviously wrong. And it's easy to selectively quote people who have something bad to say about a person to make them seem like awful people. Also doesn't seem rigorous: are ALL geniuses awful persons? That seems very unlikely. Especially as there may be geniuses in the field of being "good people".

rendall 6y ago

I know well the ex-wife and children of the inventor of an influential computer language. According to them, this language is his obsession to the exclusion of all else. They describe him as "an asshole". He habitually berated his children for not being passionate about anything. He is famous, but lost his family. I think about this fellow often, when I worry that I'm not fulfilling my potential. If genius means emotional misery for my family, then I am fine with more pedestrian accomplishments

reasonabl_human 6y ago
This resonated with me significantly. Thanks for the insight!
svantana 6y ago
We all have fairly similar hardware, brains don't vary that much between people. I think what unites a lot of "geniuses" is actually monomania. Whether it be athletes, scientists or musicians, being obsessed with a single activity will of course help you excel, but to the detriment of everything else in your life.
- viztor 6y ago
  This sounds nice but is simply not true.
slothtrop 6y ago
Does it have to mean that?
- randcraw 6y ago
  I suppose the answer to that is whether some 'geniuses' also are known for treating others well. As I recall, Shannon was described as a nice guy who seemed to care about others or at least respected their feelings. Perhaps technical genuises are better about this than artistic geniuses? I suspect the majority of genuii are self absorbed. Certainly that aspect of (mis)behavior is a mainstay of the genius stereotype. Or maybe that portrayal in movies is just the conceit of lazy scriptwriters...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WhompingWindows 6y ago

Interesting, but ultimately overly self-centered essay lacking real substance and evidence. 1. Gripe: Why do authors seek to write auto-biographical introductions? I count 5 full paragraphs of intro into this self-admitted "plodding" professor, who is not a genius, nor is he describing the "nature" of genius in those paragraphs. It comes off unnecessary and self-centered to write 5 paragraphs about yourself at the start of an essay on the nature of genius, does it not? 2. Mozart is held up as his first great example of Genius. Mozart had numerous advantages when young, though: he grew up in an intensely musical family, his brain was adapting to music in his first 3 years and then he was professionally trained beginning as a toddler. If you'd been playing piano for 3 years and your brain was specially adapted to it, yes you could be a wonder of Europe if you were also still only 5-6 at the time. The exponentially faster learning that young children exhibit is well known: their brains are extremely neuro-plastic. 3. Further down the essay, once more, a few autobiographical paragraphs about his class and Yale, and waxing poetic on gender discrepancies, not about geniuses. The essay seems to lack focus on the stated topic, the Nature of Genius, not the Nature of Yale or of the writers' life. 4. After more waxing poetic and little hard evidence except for cursory mentions of the famous geniuses, I find myself waiting for the simple point: genius is a social construct. We are all cooperatively working together, and geniuses are those who are labeled geniuses based upon the impact of their output. To explore the "nature" of genius is therefore a confluence of exploring psychology, human networks, history, and epistemology, and how socially geniuses excel inside the network of thought. 5. IMO, modern schooling is quite time-consuming and limiting. I find myself wondering, didn't the apprentice system where children had time to work on topics for a full decade longer, while younger, doesn't that aid in the creation of greatness? Rather than our painters painting from age 12, they don't begin working in earnest until age 22, up until which time their "work" consists of theoretical assignments, problem sets, and doesn't touch the real world applications which greatness necessitates.