
Ask HN: How do geniuses think? How do you think? - oldmanstan
I've recently been engrossed by the question of how geniuses and highly intelligent people think. There's bits and pieces of information online. What I'd really like to see, though, is (a) geniuses describe their thought process and (b) a smart person voicing is interior monologue while attacking a problem.<p>1) Do you know of any information like this? Link?<p>2) Otherwise: do you think in a way that's different (better) than the average person?
======
hedgie
Obsession is more valuable than genius. If you accept IQ testing at all they
call people over 130 on the WAIS very superior because genius implies a social
or intellectual impact many very superior individuals never achieve. Very
superior scores correlate highly with success in a career. But other variables
matter much more. I have met few accomplished people who work less than 60
hours a week.

Example:
[http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/08/02/...](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/08/02/the_truth_about_grit/?page=3)

"Lewis Terman, the inventor of the Stanford-Binet IQ test, came to a similar
conclusion. He spent decades following a large sample of “gifted” students,
searching for evidence that his measurement of intelligence was linked to real
world success. While the most accomplished men did have slightly higher
scores, Terman also found that other traits, such as “perseverance,” were much
more pertinent. Terman concluded that one of the most fundamental tasks of
modern psychology was to figure out why intelligence is not a more important
part of achievement: “Why this is so, and what circumstances affect the
fruition of human talent, are questions of such transcendent importance that
they should be investigated by every method that promises the slightest
reduction of our present ignorance."

Kurt Vonnegut Quote:

"Novelists . . . have, on the average, about the same IQ as the cosmetic
consultants at Bloomingdale's department store. Our power is patience. We have
discovered that writing allows even a stupid person to seem halfway
intelligent, if only that person will write the same thought over and over
again, improving it just a little bit each time. It is a lot like inflating a
blimp with a bicycle pump. Anybody can do it. All it takes is time."

~~~
corin_
Love the Vonnegut quote, thanks for introducing me to it.

------
sz
1) There are some awesome Feynman interviews on the web.

2) My brain will refuse to learn anything unless I can understand it from
first principles. I spend a long time trying to get an intuitive understanding
of a problem before starting to try to solve it. When solving a problem, I
talk out loud as if I'm trying to persuade another person of my argument,
including responding to imagined objections or questions. Often I find myself
thinking "wait, what exactly am I saying here? what do I mean by this?" I
meta-think, estimating the probability of me misunderstanding something
without being aware based on context (e.g. if I think something is easy when
really smart people think it's hard, then I probably missed something).

Math is helpful for picking up good thinking habits.

------
mattiask
There's different kinds of genius I think. You have "skill" genius where
someone can play the piano, chess etc extremely well. You also have "creative"
genius which is people like Einstein who makes creative new leaps. The first
kind of genius seems to be genetical while the second can be learnt.

I can't claim to be any kind of genius myself but creative "breakthroughs" in
my experience has mostly followed the same pattern: Immersion -> Gestation ->
Creative Leap.

You start by immersing yourself into a problem, reading everything there's to
read about the subject, getting all aspects of the problem down on paper,
pondering it wherever you go etc. As you start this you will also start a
subconcious gestation process where you're brain will start arranging itself
to the problem space. This is why I think you see "obvious" solutions to
problems after a certain period of time.

The "creative leap" or "aha!" moment can take different forms. I find they
often pop into my head while doing something else like taking a walk or a bath
and letting my mind drift. Exercise is also great to stimulate the brain. It
can also come in the form on coming in contact with something in a different
area and seeing how it relates to your problem.

I've found the more I know about a wide array of topics the easier it is to
find creative solutions to stuff. Learning stuff like languages and playing
instruments also creates new cross-connections in the brain. What you eat will
also to some degree have an impact on your thought process so eat some nuts
and fish :)

Some other good habit is to constantly re-examine and question "basic facts"
and "certainties". Keep a text dump of your thoughts so you easier can arrange
and go back to them. Play "pretend it's magic", "if it/you could anything,
what would it do?". Assume there's a solution and speculate around it's
properties instead of questioning whether one exists.

So immerse yourself, eat well, learn about lots of stuff, take long walks,
exercise and don't be afraid to daydream :)

~~~
ahoyhere
Have you actually read anything on genius, or are you just stating what
"feels" right to you? Because there are many studies on this exact thing --
the "skill" genius you're describing -- that show you are exactly wrong.

It really helps to actually study something before writing a sure-sounding
opinion to the internet at large.

~~~
mattiask
This is mainly my personal view and experience although I've done some
research on the subject. Regarding "skill" genius: of course you can get
extremely good at anything by practice, but getting into that very last
percentile seems to demand some kind of innate talent.

Chess is a good example. The Polgar sisters was groomed from from childhood by
their father to become grandmasters. Studies shows that chessplayers rewire
their brains to use the part normally used to recognize faces to remember
positions... so you can train your chess memory.

But even though the Polgar sisters are Grandmasters they're nowhere near the
raw talent of Kasparov and lately Magnus Carlsen who've defeated Karpov and
become Grand Master at the age of 13 and I think now is ranked #2 in the
world.

I would argue that you stand a much better chance of training your brain for
creative genius (in for instance science or IT) than beating Magnus :) The
same probably applies for piano etc

Bonus url: Magnus Carlsen speaks of his talent... he doesn't seem to agree
with me :) <http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6187>

------
Udo
Everybody thinks they're highly skilled and above average. A study on hubris
in academia recently showed that 95% of all university professors think they
are leading their field. (They are not.) Some of my coworkers constantly
babble on how super-intelligent and gifted their children are. (I've seen
their offspring, they are retarded and borderline autistic.)

Listening to self-declared or celebrated "geniuses" on how a decent thought
process is supposed to work, that's a really bad idea unless you're a
psychologist conducting studies on pseudocompetence and illusory superiority.
Many of our contemporary heroes are really just only good at one thing: self
marketing.

Along those lines, I'll be the first to admit: I'm below average, in almost
every single aspect of physical and mental prowess. But even with my limited
capabilities I can understand how individually different people's problem
solving strategies are. Just watching them may be inspiring, but it's not
gonna help you be any smarter.

~~~
yalurker
While you are correct that almost everyone believes themselves to be "above
average", the HN demographic likely is mostly above average individuals.

Also, not everyone claiming high intelligence is just arrogant or deluded. I'd
estimate myself at high intelligence for fairly simple reasons - scoring in
the 99th percentile on standardized tests, graduating summa cum laude, etc. I
suspect a good number of HN posters have the same (or better) educational
achievements I have to base our self-assessments on.

~~~
AjJi
The problem is what is the correlation between intelligence and results in
standardized tests?

I mean, why do you think having good results means that you are intelligent?

------
corruption
The smartest people I know have the following in common:

\- They are the most knowledgeable person in the room in their topic of
interest. That takes obsession.

\- They surround themselves by other smart people constantly

\- In large groups of smart people they are perfectly happy to ask questions
even if they are wrong. E.g in a maths seminar will debate, and often get
beaten by the subject expert.

I often wonder if the latter - asking "stupid" questions to experts in a field
- is something that was there before they were at the top. Anyone else noticed
this?

------
regularfry
1) Read Genius, by James Gleick. It's a biography of Feynman which mostly
concentrates on his life story (with just enough of his work thrown in to keep
my inner physics geek happy) which happens to contain a couple of intriguing
hints as to how he thought. Reading between the lines, I suspect he was (or
had become) synaesthetic - he describes formulae as having colour, and
combining them as entities rather than as series of symbols. He also mentions
not understanding how his students comprehended equations if they could not
see them this way, so he clearly understood that there was something different
going on in his own head.

If that's true, it's a hint as to how he was such a formidable force, because
somehow his sensory and proprioceptive apparatus had arranged to map directly
to mathematical concepts such that intuitive manipulations which the brain is
very, very good at doing anyway (because they are what's needed to drive the
body and survive day-to-day) generated useful, valid, mathematical results. Or
possibly, given descriptions of how he worked from other people, they
generated many more options, whether valid or not, in a shorter time than
anyone else, which meant he had a larger sample of possible ideas to pull the
best one from.

Whether that translates to other geniuses or not, I don't know, but when
people refer to "genius," they are referring to a qualitative difference in
thought patterns. Where conventional thought might be verbal, symbolic
manipulation, they are somehow using a higher level of abstraction. Finding a
mapping between subject-specific concepts (like formulae, or chess positions)
and something else your brain does "in the background" would seem to fit that.

2) No. I am not a genius. But I can do some things _faster_ than other people.

------
rhhfla
This essay by CW Hamming may be of interest.
[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.htm...](http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html)
Also, the work of James Austin, professor at Harvard Medical School on
successful research. Marvin Minsky, legendary MIT professor, is also
interested in the same subject but I don't have a reference. The "Random Walks
of George Polya" is also related to the subject. Stanford math professor who
specialized in techniques to solve advanced math problems.

This subject would perhaps make a great forum or separate website.

------
turbojerry
I would highly recommend you read the Strategies of Genius series by Robert
Dilts-

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-
alias%3D...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-
alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22Strategies+Of+Genius%22+&x=0&y=0)

Also I would add a few incites (that was deliberate) of my own that get me
labeled as that by some people, for example I-

1\. do not buy into 'social reality' I look for a model of reality that works
well enough to be useful even if the facts are contrary to what I am told by
'authorities'. This elicits responses from "You're crazy" to "Wow, you're a
genius" to "But XYZ pundit/politician/personality doesn't agree'. The
disadvantage to this is that most people do appear to be unquestioning sheep
and you disturb them from their slumber at your peril.

2\. think more in terms of processes than things, you'd be surprised how
wedded most people are to particular concepts of objects (real world, not the
programming paradigm)

3\. am very self directed and when I want or need to understand a subject I
immerse myself in it completely.

4\. don't let my ego get in the way of a solution to a problem, and never let
myself slip into the 'not invented here' mentality, I stand on the shoulders
of generations of giants, and am thankful for it.

5\. do not consider myself a genius, I'm just rather different from the norm.

EDIT:

Also 'genius' does not mean never wrong, a few examples-

1\. Isaac Newton may have formulated the theory of gravity, but he also
believed in alchemy.

2\. Albert Einstein formulated the theories of Special and General Relativity
but would not accept quantum mechanics, famously saying "God does not play
dice with the universe".

------
blahblahblah
People, genius or not, generally don't have any idea whatsoever _how_ they
think. This is one of the fundamental difficulties that has plagued the field
of psychology since its inception. Just because you can do a thing doesn't
mean that you really know anything at all about how it is that you do it. I
beat my heart. I grow my hair. I stand upright on two feet without falling
over. But, I don't have any first-hand experiential knowledge of _how_ I do
any of these things. I might have a little bit of insight into how I approach
some limited forms of volitional thought, but I'm well aware that the
overwhelming majority of thought isn't volitional. It just happens and I don't
have any idea how it happens (and neither does anyone else for the most part).

------
corin_
What I want to know is: how many people on HN would publicly describe
themselves as a "genius"?

~~~
gmlk
Never seriously…

It would be to close to hubris? An early indication of loosing touch with
reality? Perhaps indicating the onset of psychosis?

Maybe ironically, especially after a less-then-perfect performance ;)

Better to let others do the praising?

Q: How many people where (by others, not family/friends) publicly described as
a "genius"?

~~~
corin_
I was being pretty rhetorical ;)

~~~
gmlk
I was being aspergery about it.

------
sharvil
First, I think one needs to define genius.

Do you equate people who have achieved great success/heights as geniuses? Do
you think Tiger Woods is a genius golfer or that Warren Buffet is a genius
investor?

Or do you equate the kind of people who for example, listen to a piece of
music they have never heard before, once, and can play it flawlessly the next
moment. I think these kind of people are more savant than genius.

If former is the case, then according to this article, genius is nothing but
deliberate practice for periods of around 10 years.
([http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/))

------
Mz
(Warning: I have hardly slept. A family member is dying. I will likely regret
this post. It seemed like a good idea at the time -- or at least a better idea
than wallowing in self pity.)

Do I think I am a genius? No. But I have been repeatedly told that I "stand
out" from the crowd even when the crowd is pretty bright (which usually feels
to me like I stick out like a sore thumb :-/ ). Do I think in a way that is
different from the average person? Absolutely -- I think this is clear by the
rampant degree to which I am routinely misunderstood and the fact that I and
my son are getting well when doctors and most of the world say it cannot be
done.

Is this 'miracle cure' due to genius? I don't happen to think so. It is mostly
due to a unique set of circumstances and my ability to recognize the
opportunity it represented, combined with a fairly high degree of social
insight which allowed me to side step group-think and other social traps. I
have a relatively mild form of a condition that is quite deadly, and so does
my oldest son. I was diagnosed late in life, not long before the age at which
most people die from the more traditionally recognized form of the condition.
The late diagnosis meant that I had been thinking about my health issues and
coping with them for a very long time before being given a label for it. So
when that label came, I was reluctant to accept the definitions, assumptions,
preconceived notions, psychological baggage and raft of general mental and
emotional crapola that such labels typically come with.

I am also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. The journey of recovery for
that issue prepared me for asking the hard, socially unacceptable questions
that were needed for me to get well, first psychologically and later
physically. (After spending years telling a couple of different therapists,
who also happened to be ministers, every dirty thing ever done to me and every
nasty thing I ever felt, the negative reactions that swirl around my shocking
views of health issues are hardly worth raising an eyebrow over.) At the age
of 45, I am at a place where I feel that this earlier psychological journey of
healing was a gift to me -- a unique and highly valuable opportunity for
thinking through problems which are "unthinkable" and "unspeakable" but which
I had no choice but to think on and speak on in order to survive (I attempted
suicide at age 17 and would likely have self-destructed in some manner if I
had not dealt with these issues).

I was also a homemaker for a long time in an era and culture where that is
very strange and I homeschooled my twice exceptional (gifted and learning
disabled) sons. I think every single thing I have done has reinforced my
ability to walk my own path and resist following the crowd in spite of often
enormous pressure from one crowd or another. Not getting sucked into group-
think is the most valuable skill I have and probably the most offensive thing
I do, socially. Einstein said something like "You cannot solve a problem from
the same level of consciousness that created it." It is clear to me that the
definitions and view of the health problem I have are part of the problem. In
some ways, I find it baffling that my attempts to share a different view are
so shocking and offensive to other people -- people who clearly know that the
status quo is not working yet cling to the thinking of the status quo like a
security blanket. I don't know how to help such people and attempting to do so
puts me in a position of being a target of ugliness. I don't believe martyring
myself is any way to put more good into the world. I believe it only teaches
people that "good" people must martyr themselves and anyone who doesn't is
"bad", or something along those lines. The general tendency for people to
force individuals into roles of "good" or "bad" is the root of many problems.
I would rather walk away entirely than contribute to reinforcement of this
paradigm. I often wonder if I should, in a sense, go into "hiding" -- stop
posting under any names I am known by online and start some new website that
no one would expect and go live the "normal life" I desperately wanted for so
long and am now getting well enough to try to pursue.

I don't have an answer to that last conundrum, perhaps more proof positive
that I am not a genius. Sometimes, knowing the right questions to ask is more
important than having an answer. That approach has taken me pretty far, so I
see no reason to abandon it at this late stage in the game.

"Be careful what you wish for". Had you asked this question on some other day,
I likely would not have replied. :-P But there is a tiny piece of my own inner
monologue, FWIW.

~~~
thetylerhayes
While all of your thoughts are insightful -- thank you for that -- this one
particularly stuck out to me:

"Not getting sucked into group-think is the most valuable skill I have and
probably the most offensive thing I do, socially."

I think a lot of the people on this site can relate to that. Thank you.

~~~
Mz
Perhaps that's why HN has yet to issue me a one way ticket to Cyberia. <wink>

(Cyberia: A cold, frozen wasteland of Cyberspace.)

------
kulpreet
I don't yhink I'm a genius but I actually recently realized that I have a
different thought process than most people. Interestingly enough I recently
wrote my first blog post about it. You can check it out here:
<http://Kulpreet.com>

------
nl
You might be interested in _What Kind of Genius Are You?_
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html>

I found it pretty interesting, and superficially it seems correct. (It was on
HN a while ago)

------
iterationx
[http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-
Masterpiece...](http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-Masterpiece-
Science/dp/9569569069/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287587996&sr=1-2)

------
mping
My Kung Fu Grandmaster said: although some people can be gifted, we apply our
diligence to overcome the differences.

------
harscoat
10 000 hours of work(!) is a necessary(not sufficient though) condition,
rather than "thinking".

------
cliffw
How do average people think compared to dumb people? Extrapolate to geniuses.

~~~
twfarland
Elegant!

------
noverloop
You should take a look at Charlie munger.

video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Cy7UwsRPQ>

a more detailed overview of what you are looking for:

<http://www.focusinvestor.com/FocusSeriesPart3.pdf> (from charlie munger wiki)

~~~
rhhfla
This article is superb in response to the question and also to helping non-
business people understand how their disciplines apply to business/business
decisionmaking

------
rick_2047
1)I don't know if this is true but I have found that people who are very
intelligent talk fast (not faster than people who are nervous).

2) I cannot comment on better, but ya I do think different (I take special
pride in it). One of the few things I cannot understand about myself is my
obsession with "the problem space". People have this tendency to solve the
problem immediately after they have encountered it (at least the people I
study with, can't say for HN guys). But I cannot start working on the problem
till I have fully understood all the parts of the problems (from the first
principles) itself. This has helped me a lot, because I can formulate
solutions which solve specific parts of the problem and as these are usually
byte sized I reuse them a lot.

