I think the assumption of genius is a false one, but I admit I might be wrong about that. I'm not saying there aren't differences between individuals in their c

I think the assumption of genius is a false one, but I admit I might be wrong about that. I'm not saying there aren't differences between individuals in their cognitive or creative abilities, but I don't think there are outliers in the way the term implies, and also believe that progress continues in a much different, more cumulative way involving many more people than a standard narrative suggests. There was an article I read several years ago that I've tried to find since with no success that made the argument the notion of genius is a sort of secular replacement for or parallel to the saint concept. I thought it was apt. I think the idea of genius is a bit dangerous, not only because it robs others of credit, but it sets up unrealistic expectations about how to make progress in society. I think it lays a certain kind of societal bait too, in that the arguments for tyrants and geniuses are probably two sides of the same coin. Having said all that, I think the underlying topic of the essay — whether some time periods are characterized by more progress than others, and if so, what makes that happen, is probably worthwhile or important to discuss. It's extremely difficult though, as basic definitions are murkier than they seem and there's little in the way of hard quantitative or other empirical data to make arguments from.