I think, perceived genius is a matter of scarcity in numbers. Before, the society was divided clearly into very rich elites and peasants. The majority did not

I think, perceived genius is a matter of scarcity in numbers. Before, the society was divided clearly into very rich elites and peasants. The majority did not have access to anything that propelled genius. And then comes one or two who are far removed from the median intellect/skills and are considered "genius". Nowadays, with the median intellect/skills improving a lot, the very highly skilled people are not so much removed from the median. So, the numbers are less extreme. There is also the matter of specialization. Before, "skills" were perceived in building and creating things that everyone understands. Like a painting, a sculpture. But a complex Distributed System maintaining 3B MAUs is not impressive to people simply because they don't understand. People can easily appreciate the Taj Mahal or the Pyramids but not the schematics of a Mars lander. Give people Shakespeare, and they can appreciate in 2 years of relaxed training. Give them the CRISPR paper, and they are clueless. So, 1. People with high intellect or skills were scarce in stark contrast to the majority. So they were called geniuses. There are more geniuses now. 2. We have advanced as a civilization and the focus is now on things that are harder to appreciate because of lack of understanding. Think the Taj in moonlight versus a Mars rover.