3 ms·

At least he recognizes he's lost now, when there's plenty of time ahead to fix it. A lot of people won't see it for another 30 years.

• joe_the_user 17y ago
  Oh, but he also "recognizes" that he's brilliant, the two realization should exactly cancel each other out...
  • unalone 17y ago
    Brilliance isn't particularly difficult. A lot more people could be brilliant than are brilliant now, if they only put a little work into it.
    • joe_the_user 17y ago
      Agreed but someone who "recognizes" themselves as brilliant is someone who is thinking of their brilliance as something defining and unique - ie, they are exactly the people who don't understand the potential in everyone. I'd further mention that many people unconsciously choose to not be brilliant because this allows them to fit in.
  • bfung 17y ago
    Totally agree. Being academically successful is one thing while leading the life you want is another. Most average people figure out how they fit in our social order ok. I think the appropriate quip would be "Welcome to the real world, now get off my lawn!" Move on, nothing new here.
    • doki_pen 17y ago
      He's got a step on me. I was academically unsuccessful and thought I was brilliant. But the truth is whether you are brilliant or not is meaningless. Only how hard you try really matters.
  • ax0n 17y ago
    I'll agree. Many labels are worthless used in reference to one's self. "Brilliant" and "Hacker" among the big ones. They don't really mean anything until someone else recognizes it in you. IMHO, it takes a genuine hacker (acknowledged as such by peers) calling someone else a hacker to make it count. I would say the same applies to "brilliant." While it might do wonders for one's self-esteem, being called "brilliant" by high school teachers doesn't impress me much. In contrast: If Brian Eno says someone is brilliant, I am quite likely to take his word for it.
    • Randai 17y ago
      So wait, how does that work with the first "hacker" then. Does it mean it tails out. I mean the first "hacker" had to term himself a hacker, but by that logic only a "hacker" can be deemed a "hacker" by another true "hacker". Thusly every current "hacker" isn't a hacker then. <head-implode>AAHHHH</head-implode>
      • ax0n 17y ago
        I simply said that the title carries more weight if it's used by someone that's already considered to be in the crowd. There's obviously a kind-of non-pejorative definition of the word "hacker" as well, which can be used to generally define hackers as those who constantly seek to understand intimate details of a given system. That's easy to see from outside the sphere. To truly judge how well one understands a system, though, the judge must understand it at least as well as the person being judged. This is why it means more to be called "brilliant" or "hacker" by someone who is themself brilliant, or someone who is a hacker.