
What makes a genius? - jgrahamc
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/05/genius-genetics-intelligence-neuroscience-creativity-einstein/
======
kartan
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 it is just a
simplification of the reality. Too much get attributed to individuals once
they achieve fame. This is similar to the "survivor bias", where we also
attribute more to the individual and his ideas and abilities than it really is
worth.

> Hailed for his “otherworldly ingenuity,” Tao won the prestigious Fields
> Medal in 2006 at the age of 31. Yet he rejects lofty notions of genius. What
> really matters, he writes, is “hard work, directed by intuition, literature,
> and a bit of luck.”

This is for me, a more down to earth, realistic explanation.

~~~
coldtea
> _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. And in any case, nobody
really thinks of Salieri as a big a genius as Mozart, movie or not.

> _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._

So? John Carmac being a gaming genius or not doesn't preclude other geniuses,
or other people being able to do equally good work (even less so since he
already laid much of the groundwork for them for 2+ decades).

> _The solitary genius creates an interesting narrative, but it is just a
> simplification of the reality. Too much get attributed to individuals once
> they achieve fame._

That's true.

~~~
nikofeyn
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.

------
psyc
I've introspected, thought, and read about this for several decades, and here
is roughly what I think at present. What's perceived as genius is really a
path. One either stumbles upon or is led to a certain useful mental tool,
probably in very early childhood. That tool unlocks new paths, as in a video
game skill tree, with new tools to be discovered and leveraged. Schoolwork
looks completely different to the person armed with these tools. Nature itself
looks different.

People have commented my whole life on "how easy things come" to me. I
understand why they think that. The only visible product is the grades and
professional accomplishments. Internally though, it felt like an arduous, epic
struggle, and a continuous obsessive search for more powerful ways in which to
think.

These things surely interact with whatever heritable intelligence exists, but
they are also separate from it.

~~~
ChrisjayHenn
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 probably the reason I treated learning as a learnable skill
rather than an innate ability.

~~~
psyc
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.

~~~
mrkgnao
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.

------
nolemurs
For anyone who came to this article hoping it might contain any actual
concrete or interesting information about the nature of human intelligence: it
doesn't. Go ahead and skip the read.

The article is just a tiresome romanticized rehash of the myth of genius and
the associated pop-science.

~~~
lutusp
> For anyone who came to this article hoping it might contain any actual
> concrete or interesting information about the nature of human intelligence:
> it doesn't. Go ahead and skip the read.

Complete agreement. It's easy to detect fluff articles on the topic of genius
-- they tend to include pictures of tissue samples taken of Einstein's brain,
the presence of which can only confess how little we know.

------
coldcode
I like to think that a genius is a person who looks at life from a different
angle than the rest of us, who isn't limited by what people tell them to be or
do, who want to know why something is the way it is and not just accept it,
and who is not afraid to ask or answer difficult questions.

~~~
tinlicker
The problem is that definition just as easily applies to an unapologetic
convicted rapist.

------
yomly
From what I've seen, genius for me can be reduced to "what one is able to
achieve in some dimension with a limited amount of instruction".

I subscribe to the idea that someone can be taught to do anything, given
enough time and the right guidance. However we are all limited by our
available time and our access to instructors. At the top, this becomes even
more pressing - who can teach you when you're at the forefront of whatever you
have chosen to specialize in? This is where genius comes in, to quote
Schopenhauer, _genius hits a target no one else can see..._ \- there will come
a point where you will have to be your own teacher and whether you plateau or
continue to rise will depend on your being a genius.

This manifests in a whole variety of ways - for some, it may be mastering
calculus as a pre-teen and while Erdos, still had good and dedicated teachers,
there will many who would fail to grok the subject given the same upbringing.

For others, it is mastering the art of writing symphonies at the young age of
8 like Mozart.

My personal favourite to observe is in sports such as tennis or football where
the spectator has the chance to witness moments of true technical brilliance
and improvisation under very quick and stressful situations.

------
lutusp
The problem with the term "genius" is that it's emotionally fraught but has no
practical definition. One of the few things psychologists got right was a
decision in the 1960s to avoid use of the term in I.Q. assessments (a decision
that has sadly been swept away over a period of decades).

Source: "Our Genius Problem"
([https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/our-
gen...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/our-genius-
problem/308435/))

Quote: "At this point in history genius has become a commodity, an ambition,
and even a lifestyle. Biographers, scholars, critics, and fans spend untold
hours trying to nail down a concept _that can 't be nailed down_, to identify
a proof or a marker the way scientists identify genes." (emphasis added)

My humble suggestion is to avoid terms like "genius" and focus instead on
_what a person does with his /her gifts_.

------
louithethrid
Controlled Shizophrenia. The ability to see connections where there are none,
a conspiracy of unrelated things to be mated and the ability to step back from
this and see it for what its worth.

Can not be learned, and not having it- and the related manias and depressions,
is actually a blessing.

~~~
ChrisjayHenn
I recently read about the 'schizotypic' brain type, which was described
essentially as having a lower threshold to accept new ideas. I much prefer
that term to telling people I'm 'on the schizophrenic spectrum'

The greater tendency towards neuroses I think everyone could do without, but
learning meditation young and practicing it consistently seems an effective
way of dealing with it.

------
UhUhUhUh
And, as usual, a central aspect is absent. The social/historical environment.
Any individual's performance, in whatever aspect of human activity being
considered, is closely dependent on, some would even say produced by, its
context. Closed contexts foster waste, open contexts foster creativity.
Essentializing intelligence, or problem-solving, is way of perpetuating closed
contexts.

------
HiroshiSan
Thanks! I really enjoyed this article. Seemed well balanced on a complicated
subject.

------
gosheroo
Look at ordinary people and societies and notice that they calcify and grow
shells which make it harder and harder for change to occur. Only a profound
influence such as brain trauma or war can make them to see things differently.
Whereas an outsider can develop in his own way, guided by intuition rather
than by the social forces which stultify.

The genius is an outsider.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4226320/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4226320/)

[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4480-you-know-what-the-
fello...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4480-you-know-what-the-fellow-said-
in-italy-for)

------
coldtea
Admiration in retrospect.

------
Arun2009
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 considered a crucial factor. Lewis Terman at the Stanford University tracked the careers of a 1500 high IQ school kids. Many of them did turn out to be successes. But IQ in itself was not a guarantee - some high IQ people struggled to thrive, whereas others who didn't make the cut went on to win Nobel prizes.

* Creativity: the aha moment often emerges after a period of contemplation. Information comes in consciously, but the problem is processed unconsciously, the resulting solution leaping out when the mind least expects it. The creative process relies on the interplay of... different parts of the brain at once—both the right and left hemispheres and especially regions in the prefrontal cortex.

* Jazz musicians' brain scans during improvising: the internal network, associated with self-expression, showed increased activity, while the outer network, linked to focused attention and also self-censoring, quieted down. “It’s almost as if the brain turned off its own ability to criticize itself".

* One sign of creativity is being able to make connections between seemingly disparate concepts. Richer communication between areas of the brain may help make those intuitive leaps possible.

* As per an ongoing study, in creative people's brains: “...there’s more communication going on between the left and the right hemispheres, which one might expect in people who are highly creative”. “There’s more flexibility in their thought processes, more contributions from different parts of the brain.”

* Genetic potential alone does not predict actual accomplishment. It also takes nurture to grow a genius. Social and cultural influences can provide that nourishment, creating clusters of genius at moments and places in history: Baghdad during Islam’s Golden Age, Kolkata during the Bengal Renaissance, Silicon Valley today.

* “grit”—drives people to achieve. Duckworth, ...says the concept of genius is too easily cloaked in layers of magic, as if great achievement erupts spontaneously with no hard work. She believes there are differences when it comes to individual talent, but no matter how brilliant a person, fortitude and discipline are critical to success. “When you really look at somebody who accomplishes something great,” she says, “it is not effortless.”

* Prodigious productivity is a defining characteristic of genius. “Most articles published in the sciences are never cited by anybody,” says Simonton. “Most compositions are not recorded. Most works of art aren’t displayed.” Thomas Edison invented the phonograph and the first commercially viable light bulb, but these were just two of the thousand-plus U.S. patents he was awarded.

* Biological traits: “In the same way that Mozart may have had extraordinary hearing,” says Ausubel, “Leonardo appears to have had extraordinary visual acuity.”

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

------
badpenny
I really don't like the popular concept of "genius". It's divisive and
trivialises the accomplishments and struggles of people who aren't "geniuses".

~~~
kartan
> It's divisive and trivialises the accomplishments and struggles of people
> who aren't "geniuses".

I agree. But I will add that it also devalues the hard work of "geniuses". The
concept of "geniuses" don't bring any value to anyone, except to novel
writers. :)

~~~
Godel_unicode
I find this attitude particularly strange, given that I find stories about
geniuses inspiring. I like to read about/talk with people who are elite in
their field of endeavor, I find it amazing what they can accomplish with hard
work and grit.

I do find the excuse "oh, he's a genius, I can't do that" to be annoying
though, maybe that's what you're referring to?

------
foolrush
The culture.

------
hyperpallium
1 part inspiration, 99 parts perspiration

~~~
coldtea
1 part inspiration, 39 parts perspiration, 60 parts upbringing, family fortune
and luck.

Not many computer scientists out of Western Sahara villages...

~~~
hyperpallium
> 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).

~~~
coldtea
> _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.

~~~
hyperpallium
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?

------
socmag
I don't downvote, even if I could.

However, this comment is exceptionally rude, disrespectful and out of place
here on HN.

[EDIT] Specifically I don't appreciate the way you changed the narrative.

~~~
nnfy
The fact that you're offended does not make a comment rude. It makes a valid,
interesting point, that disdain for rules can be common to genius and
criminality.

In fact, I think your comment is exceptionally rude and disrespectful. If
you're not prepared for viewpoints to be challenged, stay out of discussions.

~~~
socmag
I'm not offended, I'm stating a fact that we were talking about what makes a
genius and you decided to make it about rape and there was an implicit
derision aimed at the person you replied to in addition.

I'm here discussing... Carry on.

~~~
coldtea
> _I 'm stating a fact that we were talking about what makes a genius and you
> decided to make it about rape_

Conversations move and branch out from their starting subject. That's in the
nature of conversation.

But even keeping it on the same subject, sometimes people bring an example or
a metaphor from a different area to clarify something about the subject. And
sometimes they try to use something obvious or universally agreed as a good or
bad counterexample to drive a point home. Which is exactly what happened here.

If we talk about computing and I bring an example from baking, I don't "make
it about baking" anymore than the parent "made it about rape". If anything,
the parent just made a single comment that just happened to use rape, he could
have used any number of similar examples, e.g. arsonists or flat earth
believers or Drake fans -- you fixated on his use of the word rape.

> _there was an implicit derision aimed at the person you replied to in
> addition._

Only an imagined one. The only thing the parent did was to aim at a gaping
hole in grandparents definition. No derision towards the person itself.

