Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The myth of ‘mad’ genius

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#51

Post by teaspoons »

papeda wrote: post #20
commandlinefan wrote: post #3

I've always wondered if a lot of "eccentric" people aren't just behaving the way everybody would naturally behave if they could get away with it. I say and do a lot of things because I have to if I want to have food to eat and a place to sleep, but I'll never know how different my behavior _might_ have been if I were rich enough or brilliant enough that people would just put up with whatever I happened to feel like d…

On a related note, I think this idea explains the appeal of smart jerk god characters (Doctor Who, Doctor House, Rick Sanchez, Sherlock Holmes...) to a sizeable portion of nerds (including me). "So smart they can't help but need you" is not a healthy goal, but damn if it isn't seductive.

it's time for the smart jerks to die along with their stupid expositional picture-walls

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#52

Post by watwut »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #40
darawk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a reasonable theory, but it doesn't explain why this phenomenon is (somewhat) unique to art. The explanation you gave applies equally well to say, Basketball players and business tycoons. And for the most part, there's no social wisdom i'm aware of that says you have to be a drug addicted asshole to be one of those things.

I think that it does apply to sports, it's a common trope that athletes (especially in contact sports) are domestic abusers. Business tycoons are often stereotyped as sociopaths. Plus there's doping in athletics. People love to criticise Lance Armstrong for doping (among his other flaws), but there's no way, even with doping, that the average person would be able to compete in pro cycling, all the steroids, clenbuter…

Then again, there are people who dropped out of sport, because they thought they would have to take doping or were pressured to. There are people I know personally who refused jobs that required them do something they found unethical - despite higher pay and benefits. It is profoundly unfair to label them as mediocre just because they have moral or ethical lines they don't cross. Doing that is nothing but rationalization of bad acts.

Maybe the average mediocre person is not just justifying their mediocre existence.

Maybe you are rationalizing bad acts bad on idea that being socially celebrated matters more then ethics and moral.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#53

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

darkmighty wrote: post #17
LifeLiverTransp wrote: post #7

Yes, why should a shizophreniac who wildly connects everyday experiences to form strange conspiracy theories would have a natural advantage when it comes to wildly recombining seemingly unconnected ideas, to leap over boundaries every 100 recombination? Of course, if there is a birth advantage there- all the meritocratic idealism and work wont get you or your kids there. So its very very anti-equalizism. Its okay, th…

Have you ever experienced or met someone with schizophrenia? It is hell. Not only for them but often for those who care about them. It's not about a rosy, whacky persons that the society whimsically outcasts. It's often legitimately tortured people that almost always need serious treatment and constant care, otherwise they risk falling into a very dark abyss. They often wind up hobos or sometimes in prisons/asylums b…

> there are no examples of seriously ill paranoid schizophrenics that put out meaningful work.

I daresay Adolf Wölfli is one counterexample. Institutionalized for most of his life, beleaguered by paranoid delusions (some of which found their expression in his work) but it was under the circumstances of that illness that he produced the art he is so acclaimed for.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#54

Post by anonytrary »

kizer wrote: post #6
commandlinefan wrote: post #3

I've always wondered if a lot of "eccentric" people aren't just behaving the way everybody would naturally behave if they could get away with it. I say and do a lot of things because I have to if I want to have food to eat and a place to sleep, but I'll never know how different my behavior _might_ have been if I were rich enough or brilliant enough that people would just put up with whatever I happened to feel like d…

I think I behave in an eccentric manner because I was raised by two liberal parents and am an only child. Although I always made friends just fine. I'm bright, but no genius. At least not yet. I often feel somehow that the eccentric behavior and intelligence are the result of a latent property, like some kind of general freedom of mind. Also I have (will inherit) some assets that generate money on their own. So I gue…

> I'm bright, but no genius. At least not yet.

Is your comment supposed to be satire? No one has ever said "When did they become a genius?" about someone who is considered a genius. I think, at least colloquially, genius is considered to be innate.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#55

Post by lmm »

gh02t wrote: post #46
minikites wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article has a good response to this, artists generally have a more flexible work environment: >The creative occupations considered in these studies are overwhelmingly in the arts, which frequently provide greater autonomy and less rigid structure than the average nine-to-five job. This makes these jobs more conducive to the success of individuals who struggle with performance consistency as the result of a mood d…

Artists can also often work in isolation, especially someone already regarded as a genius. I suspect plenty of people have a tendency towards eccentric behavior, but suppress it because they need to participate in society in order to survive. A genius engineer for example is less able to be wildly eccentric, because an engineer is inherently dependent on others and depends on others to implement their designs. Anothe…

Euler is the famous example: one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, who by accounts had an otherwise ordinary life and was a respectable family man.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#56

Post by mikekchar »

majormajor wrote: post #35
darawk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a reasonable theory, but it doesn't explain why this phenomenon is (somewhat) unique to art. The explanation you gave applies equally well to say, Basketball players and business tycoons. And for the most part, there's no social wisdom i'm aware of that says you have to be a drug addicted asshole to be one of those things.

Less on the drugs (minus, say, steroids for athletes and cocaine for business folks in the 80s), but there is a lot of social wisdom that says you have to be an asshole to be best at those things. Nice guys finish last. Backstabbing corporate politics. "Killer instinct" for athletes. Steve Jobs, Michael Jordan, Kobe...

It's unusual to find someone so far ahead of the pack that somebody who gains an edge by acting unethically can't use it to overtake that person. I think it occasionally happens, but people in the top tiny percentage just aren't that far apart.

If you have an obsession to be number 1, then probably you need that extra edge (no matter how slim). But I think the deeper question is why does anyone need to be number 1? I think the reality is that most "nice guys" just don't care. You can be "successful enough" and ethics don't even enter into it.

will never enjoy the simple pleasures I do -- because they are driven to be a big jerk who is massively successful. (Not necessarily implying that I'm not a big jerk anyway ;-) )

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#57

Post by proverbialbunny »

anonytrary wrote: post #54
kizer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I behave in an eccentric manner because I was raised by two liberal parents and am an only child. Although I always made friends just fine. I'm bright, but no genius. At least not yet. I often feel somehow that the eccentric behavior and intelligence are the result of a latent property, like some kind of general freedom of mind. Also I have (will inherit) some assets that generate money on their own. So I gue…

> I'm bright, but no genius. At least not yet. Is your comment supposed to be satire? No one has ever said "When did they become a genius?" about someone who is considered a genius. I think, at least colloquially, genius is considered to be innate.

The brain physically changes in response to life's experiences. To dismiss life experience and believe genius is exclusively innate is a hard pill to swallow.

By understanding how a thing works, the more power one has to change it. Therefor, the better one understands their own intelligence, the more power they have to change their intelligence. However, being able to tease apart intelligence requires a high prerequisite intelligence, muddying the water between innate and not. In whole, I do not think intelligence is exclusively nature or nurture.

Asking someone, "When about do you think you became a genius?" is a great question. I might have to steal that one next time I bump into a genius offline.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#58

Post by krageon »

watwut wrote: post #52
toomanybeersies wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that it does apply to sports, it's a common trope that athletes (especially in contact sports) are domestic abusers. Business tycoons are often stereotyped as sociopaths. Plus there's doping in athletics. People love to criticise Lance Armstrong for doping (among his other flaws), but there's no way, even with doping, that the average person would be able to compete in pro cycling, all the steroids, clenbuter…

Then again, there are people who dropped out of sport, because they thought they would have to take doping or were pressured to. There are people I know personally who refused jobs that required them do something they found unethical - despite higher pay and benefits. It is profoundly unfair to label them as mediocre just because they have moral or ethical lines they don't cross. Doing that is nothing but rationaliza…

Being socially celebrated gets you all the things people teach you mean success as you're growing up: Money, probably a beautiful wife, the admiration of your peers. I agree with you that doesn't have to matter but I don't think you should underestimate how much that flies in the face of what most people have been taught matters most.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#59

Post by fladrif »

Creativity seems to stem from being outside of the "mainstream" mindset, of going down paths not taken and trying unconventional strategies. Most of the time these don't work out putting an emphasis on the tried and true, but when it does it get labeled as a spark of genius, of creativity. I think it takes a certain type of person to continually beat down these paths and blaze unconventional trails and may be a mark of a 'mad' man/woman, but it may just take those kinds of people to not try and conform with conventional wisdom.
Post reply on HN