4 ms·

History (ancient and recent) is full of geniuses who came up with a revolutionary idea largely on their own Not quite. They are always building in the backs of

History (ancient and recent) is full of geniuses who came up with a revolutionary idea largely on their own Not quite. They are always building in the backs of those who came before, even ( and sometime especially ) the failures. Simultaneous independent invention is pretty strong evidence for this. It still takes a uniquely talented person, but when a certain critical mass of prior learning and information is achieved, then for those uniquely talented people the breakthroughs may be the logical next step as they work through the problem. See Newton & Leibniz re:calculus as an example. The author dismisses this example, but both did truly do the heavy lifting, independent of each other, but still with the assistance of collaboration and shared thoughts. The problem is that the author seems to not want to admit to degrees of "lone-ness". Either a genius did most of the heavy lifting, or they did not-- the author does not seem interested in examining the nuances of how-- and how much-- an individual achieved through relationships with other thinkers resent & past. Even if we were to grant (incorrectly) that Newton would have achieved everything he achieved without any assistance, feedback, discussions, etc with other thinkers of his time, it would be truly ridiculous to think he would have achieved as much if not for everything & everyone who came before them. In short, some genius intellects still benefit from fertile soil, and this does not at all take away from their incredible achievements that still required a genius intellects to put together. The author seems to think acknowledging this somehow takes away from the achievement: it does not. If anything, it elevates it: The genius takes everything that came before and the intellects of their own time, synthesizes it and then transcends it. That transcendence is incredible, but it did not occur in isolation. And the of course there are discoveries that are achieved through gradual, often tedious chipping away at a problem. This is a lot of science, even if the massive paradigm shifts (See Thomas Kuhn's work on this topic) may come from a single unique catalyst. The catalyst needs something to catalyze though.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Of course. Knowledge is always collective. We hugely underestimate how much knowledge is externalised in cultural firmware, passed down from generation to generation, and only accumulated - when it accumulates at all - because of inventions like writing, math formalisms, cultural and creative traditions, and the scientific method. Without a head start from previous generations you get a rather dumb monkey. Even a genius dumb monkey is going to be extremely limited in what it can do. Even so - an educated genius monkey with the right life opportunities can still generate lone game changing insights that most monkeys can't. Without that kind of step change insight domains will stagnate, sometimes for centuries. No amount of collective cultural activity of any kind will move them on.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Yes, I generally agree with this. Fertile soil may abound for countless years before just the right seed takes hold. The presence of fertile soil should not eclipse what the seed becomes, but neither should "what it becomes" be seen as independent from that fertile soil. If there is a "myth of the myth", it is only that the concept of "lone genius" focuses too much on the achievements of the seed, while the "myth of the lone genius" focuses too much on the fertile soil. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
PopsiclePete 5y ago
I think people are getting hung up too much on the "their own" part vs "full of geniuses" part. Ok, fine, if three - instead of one - people - out of billions - came up with a revolutionary new idea - that does not, to me, discount the idea of the "lone genius", just because 2 > 1 and we can't strictly use the word "lone" anymore. The idea would be discounted, if say, 500 million people all invented calculus independently of each other over a period of 5 months.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  The vast majority of geniuses were lucky enough to be born into families that were very much above the lower socioeconomic classes of their times. These were not "lone" geniuses, not when everything about their early lives gave them advantages above the majority that allowed them to pursue a life that left room for intellectual pursuit. Whether it's 1 or 10 that made discoveries around the same time, they have still taken advantage of 1) every piece of knowledge they've encountered that came before them and 2) At least limited, and often not very limited, collaboration or "bouncing ideas of off" people around them. 3) The circumstances of their birth. These can't be discounted. These are, however, matters of degree, and as I said it can still take a unique intellect to put the pieces together. That can't be discounted, but there still must be pieces to put together. Even Ramanujan had tutors from a very early age who taught him quite a bit, along with multiple books on the subject of mathematics, to help him along his way. Each of these sources had in turn built upon many years and many minds' worth of knowledge. Ramanujan is probably the most "lone" of lone geniuses that I can think of, and still he would likely not have achieved nearly as much without that foundational knowledge. This is not just about simultaneous discovery-- although that does demonstrate the "fertile ground" aspect of things. It is fundamentally about the sum total of knowledge that came before a genius and the social network of very smart, though perhaps not genius intellects, that served as sounding boards, critics, etc. And though the author of this article wants to discount the "luck" aspect of these individuals, it is extremely notable that most if not all of the individuals that spring to mind came from circumstances of birth that allowed for their intellect to flourish. They were born into circumstances of middle class or higher where resources supplemental to the basic necessities required for life & sustenance could be devoted to their education & leisure time to pursue their interests: Einstein was not born into a working class family with parents confined to jobs of physical labor. Newton's family similarly was not of the labor class. Nor was Ramanujan's. Or Leibniz's.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Of course. Knowledge is always collective. We hugely underestimate how much knowledge is externalised in cultural firmware, passed down from generation to generation, and only accumulated - when it accumulates at all - because of inventions like writing, math formalisms, cultural and creative traditions, and the scientific method. Without a head start from previous generations you get a rather dumb monkey. Even a genius dumb monkey is going to be extremely limited in what it can do. Even so - an educated genius monkey with the right life opportunities can still generate lone game changing insights that most monkeys can't. Without that kind of step change insight domains will stagnate, sometimes for centuries. No amount of collective cultural activity of any kind will move them on.

ineedasername 5y ago
Yes, I generally agree with this. Fertile soil may abound for countless years before just the right seed takes hold. The presence of fertile soil should not eclipse what the seed becomes, but neither should "what it becomes" be seen as independent from that fertile soil. If there is a "myth of the myth", it is only that the concept of "lone genius" focuses too much on the achievements of the seed, while the "myth of the lone genius" focuses too much on the fertile soil. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

PopsiclePete 5y ago

I think people are getting hung up too much on the "their own" part vs "full of geniuses" part. Ok, fine, if three - instead of one - people - out of billions - came up with a revolutionary new idea - that does not, to me, discount the idea of the "lone genius", just because 2 > 1 and we can't strictly use the word "lone" anymore. The idea would be discounted, if say, 500 million people all invented calculus independently of each other over a period of 5 months.

ineedasername 5y ago
The vast majority of geniuses were lucky enough to be born into families that were very much above the lower socioeconomic classes of their times. These were not "lone" geniuses, not when everything about their early lives gave them advantages above the majority that allowed them to pursue a life that left room for intellectual pursuit. Whether it's 1 or 10 that made discoveries around the same time, they have still taken advantage of 1) every piece of knowledge they've encountered that came before them and 2) At least limited, and often not very limited, collaboration or "bouncing ideas of off" people around them. 3) The circumstances of their birth. These can't be discounted. These are, however, matters of degree, and as I said it can still take a unique intellect to put the pieces together. That can't be discounted, but there still must be pieces to put together. Even Ramanujan had tutors from a very early age who taught him quite a bit, along with multiple books on the subject of mathematics, to help him along his way. Each of these sources had in turn built upon many years and many minds' worth of knowledge. Ramanujan is probably the most "lone" of lone geniuses that I can think of, and still he would likely not have achieved nearly as much without that foundational knowledge. This is not just about simultaneous discovery-- although that does demonstrate the "fertile ground" aspect of things. It is fundamentally about the sum total of knowledge that came before a genius and the social network of very smart, though perhaps not genius intellects, that served as sounding boards, critics, etc. And though the author of this article wants to discount the "luck" aspect of these individuals, it is extremely notable that most if not all of the individuals that spring to mind came from circumstances of birth that allowed for their intellect to flourish. They were born into circumstances of middle class or higher where resources supplemental to the basic necessities required for life & sustenance could be devoted to their education & leisure time to pursue their interests: Einstein was not born into a working class family with parents confined to jobs of physical labor. Newton's family similarly was not of the labor class. Nor was Ramanujan's. Or Leibniz's.