3 ms·
This article is quite interesting. I thought it was good that the author restricted himself to a description of genius traits, instead of implying that applyin
by delluminatus 14y ago
This article is quite interesting.
I thought it was good that the author restricted himself to a description of genius traits, instead of implying that applying these traits would make one a genius. At least, until the summary, where he threw that out the window.
It's important to not engage in some kind of magic thinking here: altering your behavior patterns to match "genius" behavior is self-defeating. When one is dealing with the kind of outlier that a genius represents, wholesale emulation is an insufficient strategy to duplicate their success.
- m_for_monkey 14y agoWell, in the summary he cites some evidence that "geniusness" can be learned, at least if your teacher himself is a genius. "J. J. Thompson and Ernest Rutherford between them trained seventeen Nobel laureates" - quite a coincidence.
- astrofinch 14y agoMaybe they had just accumulated a good set of heuristics for doing good research.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jimhefferon 14y agoOf course, they were the top people in their fields and so attracted the top students. Having good people coming in helps with a person's production of great people.
- horsehead 14y agoi wonder though -- if geniuses think a certain way, will training yourself to think along those lines increase your brainpower by teaching you to think more critically? I've read a lot of stuff recently on the ability humans have to actually increase their intelligence (though it's still a pretty controversial subject). No emulation doesnt make you a genius; but maybe it can help to bring you just that tiny step closer?
- jakeonthemove 14y agoOf course you'll be closer to a "genius" if you act like one or better yet, have one as your mentor. If you're lazy, though, you can always just tail a genius, then steal his thunder :-D