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

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#61

Post by [deleted] »

vkou wrote: post #25
baxtr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I catch myself often wanting to behave more eccentric, but then somehow societal laws keep pulling me back. I wish I had the guts (like Steve had) to be blunt to anyone

Steve was a huge asshole to a lot of people, when he had power over them. There's eccentric behaviour, and there is being a jerk. One's harmless, if odd - the other goes out of the way to ruin someone's day. You don't want to be the second one. Consider the interaction between John Carmack and Steve Jobs that was posted the other day: > One time, my wife, then fiancée, and I were meeting with Steve at Apple, and he w…

[deleted]

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#62

Post by Ntrails »

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.

To me it's not so much "So smart they can't help but need you", as it is "being right is more important than anything else". The world doesn't work like that (often), but it's an attractive ideal in some ways

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#63

Post by carlmr »

8bitsrule wrote: post #42

The Romantic stereotype that creativity is enhanced by a mood disorder That's postulated as a given. If it's not a given, then it's a red herring. The author supplies no evidence that it's a given. As far as I got, the phrase 'mood disorder' was undefined. ... But is there any scientific reason to believe in a connection? Science doesn't believe, science constructs and improves models based on repeatable observations…

>Science doesn't believe, science constructs and improves models based on repeatable observations.

That's confusing the scientific ideal, with how actual scientists operate. Actual scientists hope that they get something right, they feel strongly about their research like the mother of a child, they're just as clouded by emotions as any other human being. And if you add corruption into the mix, then yes, what we call science is not as solid as it looks, but it still provides useful results sometimes.

But we can still talk about a scientific reason to believe. Because the reason might be scientific, but it still might be something which we can believe or not. Because scientific reasons are about as flawed as their creators.

The replication problems in many fields are evidence that science is only as ideal as the people producing it.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#64

Post by geezerjay »

nur0n wrote: post #5
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…

Are people brilliant because they don't care or do they not care because they are brilliant? Seems to be a little of both...

> Are people brilliant because they don't care or do they not care because they are brilliant? Seems to be a little of both...

IMHO, it's neither. If others want something from you then they pamper you to get what they seek, and the more indispensable you are the more they tolerate. Over time you feel no pressure to adapt your behaviour because those who deal with you feel compelled to adapt to you.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#65

Post by watwut »

krageon wrote: post #58
watwut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is why I am objecting against knee jerk labeling of people who resisted the temptation as "mediocre" and knee jerk celebration of those who did not resisted as "the others are mediocre anyway". It is tempting even without that.

The beautiful wife will get old as any other women, unless you exchange her ever few years. Being wife merely as a social status trophy is not the kind of relationship I would find attractive at all. I know that some girls are raised to believe that is what they are supposed to be, but that is another category of things I would rather avoid.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#66

Post by musage »

proverbialbunny wrote: post #57
anonytrary wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 prerequi…

Genius or not, I have an IQ of 142 and don't understand my intelligence one bit. I don't even understand what "understanding one's intelligence" would mean. But I think being used to being able to learn things on the fly or solve new problems gives a lot of confidence to keep doing that, and that really helps. Often I feel friends or relatives are struggling with something because they aren't really trying, if they don't know the solution they don't spend enough time to find or even invent one.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#67

Post by kizer »

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.

By that I meant that I haven't proved to be a genius so far. If I were to become a Nobel laureate in the future, people would see that I was a genius in retrospect.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#68

Post by musage »

krageon wrote: post #58
watwut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Teached by whom? My parents teached me a million things but none of what you said ever came up. Same for school. Hollywood movies certainly "teach" that, gangsta rap does, but what else?

By the way, spectator sports is the original "if you're not paying, you're not the customer" -- so people get paid a lot to be good at sports, cycling in circles, kicking a ball back and forth, that sort of thing, to shovel eyeballs in front of advertisements. Nietzsche said all there is to say about money and those who need it, and as for the admiration of peers, that too is the consolation price for those who don't have confidence, who don't know themselves. What you're describing isn't some sort of elite person, you're describing people who are the best and work the hardest at being perfectly mediocre. Which, by the way, is a detestable thing, and a wasted life.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#69

Post by Nasrudith »

uxhack wrote: post #19

This article is trying to rebute David Horrobin idea that if everyone is creative then the world will soon be become crazy. It takes a geniuses to see a stick as a weapon. If Everyone starts becoming creative then the whole society will quickly devenigate.We need slme order. Horrobin arguement goes against the idea that everyone can be a creative genius. What is interesting about his idea is that how universal crazin…

Reminds me of a differing but related idea. Society at large is already crazy but nobody notices because it has been so normalized being rational is looked upon as crazy.

The promoter of doctors handwashing wound up instituionalized. And it isn't a in the past problem. I mean look at interviewing etiquette and ideals for one. They distrust people who can't or won't put on a mask convincingly enough as untrustworthy. Not even as "unsuited for a job where it is relevant like sales or acting". That is frankly barking mad to only trust those capable of faking.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#70

Post by opinionator1 »

dfee wrote: post #44
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’d be considered eccentric. It’s not discipline or the lack thereof. There is a piercing focus that overwhelms the demands of normalcy. But I won’t talk about me. I’ll talk about a friend of mine. He stepped away from his role with the US Gov’t and spent the last year wandering through Africa and Eastern Europe. I don’t concern myself with him having a roof over his head, because he always will. He just doesn’t defi…

^ Low-value humblebrag that adds nothing to the conversation.
Post reply on HN