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

What makes a genius?

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: What makes a genius?

#51

Post by chongli »

kartan wrote: post #3

I think that there is a lot of revisionism in the concept of "genius". Just look at the movie "Amadeus". It looks like Mozart genius is the envy of the mediocre Salieri. In fact, Salieri was an incredible composer himself. Then you have people like John Carmack. He is a figure in the game industry. But one of the best Doom ever has been developed without him. The solitary genius creates an interesting narrative, but…

Then you have people like John Carmack. He is a figure in the game industry. But one of the best Doom ever has been developed without him.

Carmack has never been famous as a game designer. How good or bad his games turned out to be had a lot more to do with Romero, who actually did the game and level design work.

Carmack is worshipped as a game technologist. The legendary stories about him are all based on achieving things with limited hardware. For that he has few modern rivals.

Re: What makes a genius?

#52

Post by badpenny »

chongli wrote: post #49
badpenny wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because height is a spectrum and easily and accurately quantifiable, whereas "genius" is neither.

Genius is not a spectrum, but neither is "seven feet tall". If you're looking for something to compare to height, look at IQ.

You're the one who used the analogy. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Height is a spectrum and yes, IQ is a spectrum. "Seven feet tall" is an easily identifiable point along the height spectrum. "Genius" is not an easily identifiable point along the IQ spectrum.

It's a wishy-washy, overly emotive term that lumps certain people into an elite group which, by the popular conception of the word, you're either born into or you're not. It says more about the people who use it than the people they're bestowing the title upon. But hey, if you like the term and get your kicks seeing it bandied about, good for you. I find it trite and counterproductive.

Re: What makes a genius?

#53

Post by chongli »

badpenny wrote: post #52
chongli wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genius is not a spectrum, but neither is "seven feet tall". If you're looking for something to compare to height, look at IQ.

You're the one who used the analogy. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Height is a spectrum and yes, IQ is a spectrum. "Seven feet tall" is an easily identifiable point along the height spectrum. "Genius" is not an easily identifiable point along the IQ spectrum. It's a wishy-washy, overly emotive term that lumps certain people into an elite group which, by the popular conception of the word, you're either born into…

The purpose of making the distinction is not to get my kicks but to highlight that there's more to success than hard work. The idea that all you need is to work hard enough and you can do whatever you want is a pernicious lie used to prop up the corollary: "You didn't succeed, so obviously you didn't work hard enough."

By drawing the analogy to height, I thought the point would be obvious. Telling somebody who is 5'2" that they "didn't work hard enough" after they failed to get drafted into the NBA is just cruel. I think the same argument applies for somebody with an IQ of 85 hoping to win a gold medal at the IMO or a Fields Medal.

People are in elite groups along many different metrics: wealth, intelligence, height, strength, athleticism, etc. Hard work is what it takes for somebody who is already in one or more of those elite groups to succeed on the world stage. Millions more work just as hard but aren't in those groups and typically don't win the big contests.

Re: What makes a genius?

#54

Post by hyperpallium »

eternalvision wrote: post #39
hyperpallium wrote: post #17

1 part inspiration, 99 parts perspiration

Why were you downvoted? While not an original idea, it does mostly represent the reality of expressed genius. Even if the 1 part inspiration is a required part (i.e. you either have that inspiration/talent/predisposition/whatever it is, or you don't), the 99 parts perspiration correctly convey that differentiation truly arises from hard work and persistence. Many 'genius' level minds are doing absolutely nothing prod…

Not only is it not original, it's a famous quotation (Edison).

I like that it's about expressed genius, implying genius isn't something you are, but something you do. Inspiration strikes unpredictably. This fits with that TED talk about the older definition of genius as a kind of muse that visits you (the inspiration part).

The inspiration for relativity - that you could make speeds constant by fiddling time and distance - is pretty simple, even childish or foolish. But constructing a consistent mathematical theory from it was difficult. Even so, the maths was within reach of other mathematicians of the time - they tutored Einstein for general relativity. It's the inspiration that you could do it and actually doing it, Though IMHO the most amazing thing about relativity is that it turned out to be true.

I agree there are many smart people who never did anything. By this definition, they aren't "geniuses".

BTW: HN might dislike this quote because Edison has fallen from favour, and (Nikola) Tesla is celebrated. Though, Edison is by all measures the better model of entrepreneurship (Telsa the better inventor). In general, HN votes should not be taken seriously.

Re: What makes a genius?

#55

Post by hyperpallium »

coldtea wrote: post #30
hyperpallium wrote: post #17

1 part inspiration, 99 parts perspiration

1 part inspiration, 39 parts perspiration, 60 parts upbringing, family fortune and luck. Not many computer scientists out of Western Sahara villages...

> upbringing, family fortune and luck

You just need to be not pre-occupied with survival; and to have access to state-of-the-art knowledge and techniques (or you'll waste your inspiration re-inventing them, instead of SOTSOG).

Re: What makes a genius?

#56

Post by jbpetersen »

Arun2009 wrote: post #46

I tried to tease out the "meat" of the article excluding the filler as follows. It's mostly the same old cliches - nothing new. * What makes a genius? We don't know the answer, but science offers some clues. There isn't likely to be a single factor, since genius is too elusive a concept. But intelligence, creativity, perseverance, and good fortune may be a few factors that contribute to it. * Intelligence is often co…

Thank you for this. I wish there were more people (or bots) like you who made thoughtful highlights.

Re: What makes a genius?

#57

Post by coldtea »

hyperpallium wrote: post #55
coldtea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 part inspiration, 39 parts perspiration, 60 parts upbringing, family fortune and luck. Not many computer scientists out of Western Sahara villages...

> upbringing, family fortune and luck You just need to be not pre-occupied with survival; and to have access to state-of-the-art knowledge and techniques (or you'll waste your inspiration re-inventing them, instead of SOTSOG).

>You just need to be not pre-occupied with survival; and to have access to state-of-the-art knowledge and techniques

You "just need" to have those to struggle 100x times as hard as the person who has this plus good upbringing, plus connections, plus university education, plus is in the right country for a chance at the same results.

Re: What makes a genius?

#58

Post by hyperpallium »

coldtea wrote: post #57
hyperpallium wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> upbringing, family fortune and luck You just need to be not pre-occupied with survival; and to have access to state-of-the-art knowledge and techniques (or you'll waste your inspiration re-inventing them, instead of SOTSOG).

> You just need to be not pre-occupied with survival; and to have access to state-of-the-art knowledge and techniques You "just need" to have those to struggle 100x times as hard as the person who has this plus good upbringing, plus connections, plus university education, plus is in the right country for a chance at the same results.

I would include "university education" under "access to state-of-the-art knowledge and techniques", and "right country" under that and not having to be pre-occupied with survival. I don't think we differ much there.

"Connections" help for success in business/career, but how do they help for genius?

Re: What makes a genius?

#59

Post by mrkgnao »

psyc wrote: post #38
ChrisjayHenn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still credit my academic achievements to my father reading 'Dune' to me as a child, because I was fascinated by the (paraphrased) introduction to one of the chapters: "Many comment on how quickly Paul Muad-dib learned, but they do not realize that his first lesson was in how to learn, and the first part of that lesson was believing he could learn... it is amazing how few people believe they can learn". That book is…

My parents got me my most influential book when I was 4. "What Makes It Go? What Makes It Work? What Makes It Fly? What Makes It Float?" by Joe Kaufman. It taught me that everything has causal inner mechanisms . From then on, I had xray vision and could imagine the inner mechanisms of every object at work.

The conviction that the world, pace certain "intrinsic" limits of the information-theoretic or quantum-mechanical nature, is understandable is a singularly powerful one. It's something lots of people think they believe, but it took me (anecdotally) until I was 9 or 10 to internalise it. The belief that the X-ray vision you speak of exists is enough in many cases for one to "get" it.

I do not mean to start a tangential flamewar, but the ability to accept and be comfortable with not knowing, while at the same time believing that the unknown is not unknowable, is something a certain kind of religious worldview precludes. This is one thing which I realised quite early on that my parents didn't share my beliefs on: for them, there's some underlying agent that chooses what happens in situations that we call random or do not understand:

"I don't know why this happens, but there's no reason why we never should/it's not computable/etc."

"Ah, child, it's time to accept things as they are. When I do not understand, I say God's causing it to happen."

It's a confusing mixture of the different positions one can take on determinism coupled with a sort of complacence I find remarkable.

Re: What makes a genius?

#60

Post by nikofeyn »

coldtea wrote: post #28
kartan wrote: post #3

I think that there is a lot of revisionism in the concept of "genius". Just look at the movie "Amadeus". It looks like Mozart genius is the envy of the mediocre Salieri. In fact, Salieri was an incredible composer himself. Then you have people like John Carmack. He is a figure in the game industry. But one of the best Doom ever has been developed without him. The solitary genius creates an interesting narrative, but…

> I think that there is a lot of revisionism in the concept of "genius". Just look at the movie "Amadeus". It looks like Mozart genius is the envy of the mediocre Salieri. In fact, Salieri was an incredible composer himself. That's not a "revisionism in the concept of "genius"" -- just a misrepresentation of Salieri (at best). A revisionism in the concept of genius would involve redefining what genius itself means. A…

i personally have never understood john carmack's "genius" role. smart guy for sure. but in many ways, i tend to think of a genius being without a peer in their direct domain, and for john carmack, that's simply not the case. the most prominent example is tim sweeney. it's just that he isn't as big into marketing himself as carmack is. tim sweeney has arguably outdone carmack in many ways.
Post reply on HN