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 the

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.