
How We Kill Geniuses - antiform
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/02/ted-how-we-kill.html
======
jballanc
I'll go out on a limb (especially since this is HN! run by YC!!):
entrepreneurship is killing genius. In my lifetime I've witnessed the slow
slide from blue sky research being rampant in corporate America around the
time I was born (early '80s), to being found only in academia ('90s), to even
academia being expected to turn a profit ('00s). My university even has a
vice-Provost in charge of turning research into new businesses.

Not every good idea can make a profit. When you demand that all ideas do,
you'll be missing out...

~~~
noonespecial
Genius created the apple computer. Entrepreneurship brought it to the rest of
us. There's probably about the same amount of genius as ever, there's just a
lot more people hawking it these days.

~~~
maxwell
Depends on how you're defining it, but attributing products to "genius" sounds
awfully like a creationist fallacy. It's interesting that you should cite
Apple; Woz's work on the Apple I and their current design process both seem
exceptionally darwinian.

~~~
noonespecial
I'm going to have to disagree with that. It took surprising insight for the
Woz to look at the same parts catalogs as everyone else and then (without even
having the parts at first) do such extraordinary things with them. Many people
had access to the parts, more experience, and the technical ability to do this
earlier, they just didn't.

The iterative improvement that Apple uses to design and perfect products is
somewhat darwinian but it lacks the random mutation and recombinative aspects
that define evolution. I'd have to say (since the water has already been
clouded by this new little corollary of Godwin's law) that it more nearly
approximates intelligent design.

~~~
unalone
Not just Woz. Jobs did it too. Back then, and still today. If you think that
the people who conceptualized and designed the iPod and iPhone aren't artists
through-and-through, you've got another thing coming. The team works together,
yeah, but you don't design beautiful things by committee.

Incidentally (to the OP), you _always_ make multiple designs before you pick
one. That's not loss of artistic process. I've got three drafts of a single
chapter of the book I'm working on now. I've got something like 5 different
possible melodies to fit a song I've been Garagebanding. That doesn't take
away from the power of the individual when it comes to designing a product.
(Considering how in-depth people have looked at Jony Ive's design process and
inspiration, I find it sad that people still think Apple products are made
through a generic idea-forming process, that the people barely matter in the
creation process.

(Also, this author is not a particularly good one, and the fact that she's
citing Tom Waits is not a good sign. Waits is a legendary practical jokester
and story spinster, and all reports of his songwriting I've read say that he
undergoes a very strict process when constructing his songs.)

------
nostrademons
I dunno. I think it's wrong to view genius as being an inherent quality of a
person. I think it's equally wrong to view it as an external force that just
happens to visit people at certain times.

In my experience, genius is the result of turning over a problem in your head
over and over, learning all the angles, and then relaxing and forgetting about
it for a while. While you're forgetting about it, your brain can make
subconscious connections between everything you've learned that seem to come
from nowhere. But _you have to have the background knowledge_.

I find that I have tons of creative ideas when I'm just starting out a
project. They almost all turn out to be bad ones. Then once I explore a bit,
learn everything there is to know about the area, I'll _occasionally_ get a
decent idea. If I don't think too hard about it.

------
ojbyrne
From the amazon reviews of her book: "I could not finish this book. When the
author burst into sobs yet again in the middle of prayer, or a conversation,
or walking down the street, or (more likely) on the floor of yet another
bathroom, I gave up. This is the type of person you meet at a cocktail party
and RUN in the other direction after a few minutes when she starts spewing out
all her problems at you with no end in sight."

~~~
wallflower
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote the best treatise on writing (and by extension,
creative expression) I think I've ever read. Here are some excerpts - I
believe its worthwile reading the entire essay many times:

"I often hear people say, “I’m not good enough yet to be published.” That’s
quite possible. Probable, even. All I’m saying is: Let someone else decide
that. Magazines, editors, agents – they all employ young people making $22,000
a year whose job it is to read through piles of manuscripts and send you back
letters telling you that you aren’t good enough yet: LET THEM DO IT. Don’t
pre-reject yourself. That’s their job, not yours. Your job is only to write
your heart out, and let destiny take care of the rest."

"There are heaps of books out there on How To Get Published. Often people find
the information in these books contradictory. My feeling is -- of COURSE the
information is contradictory. Because, frankly, nobody knows anything. Nobody
can tell you how to succeed at writing (even if they write a book called “How
To Succeed At Writing”) because there is no WAY; there are, instead, many
ways. Everyone I know who managed to become a writer did it differently –
sometimes radically differently. "

<http://www.elizabethgilbert.com/writing.htm> Submitting essay link for what
it's worth..

~~~
unalone
I really wanted to dislike that essay - I was annoyed at how she treated
writing like a sacred task - but it was good and definitely worth the few
minutes it took to read. Thanks for the link!

------
DaniFong
This article reminded me of the story of Robert Oppenheimer. In that case, at
least, I think the story of how we destroy our heroes rings true.

If any of you enjoy biographies, stories of scientific and engineering
heroism, and haven't read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," please do. It is an
extraordinary story.

~~~
mynameishere
_Oppenheimer himself at his 1954 security clearance hearings denied being a
member of the Communist Party, but identified himself as a fellow traveler,
which he defined as someone who agrees with many of the goals of Communism,
but without being willing to blindly follow orders from any Communist party
apparatus._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer>

Oppenheimer destroyed himself, allying himself with the only orthodoxy [but
somehow being _not_ orthodox] that was more murderous than fascism.

~~~
DaniFong
How is agreeing with some of the goals of an othodoxy the same as allying with
it?

~~~
homme
Further, how is an orthodoxy/political belief murderous? I thought only people
could commit murder.

------
motoko
Briefly: based on anecdotes, some may be more creative if they psychologically
attribute their creativity outside their ego

~~~
l0stman
Frankly, I don't know. It seems the most creative people are also self-
confident. They're both arrogant and humble. Plus, we should rate someone's
achievement by his best output, not his thousands failures.

------
drinian
Interesting starting point to a real problem with "genius," but not a great
strategy. If she's arguing that internalizing blame for not being constantly
brilliant or being able to maximize your brilliance puts undue stress on
amazing people, then maybe learning to live with that fact rather
externalizing the blame to something imaginary would be a better idea. That
way, you will at least be comfortable enough with your own mind to maybe begin
exploring real ways to improve your genius productivity (see also:
[http://nomediakings.org/time_management_for_anarchists/free_...](http://nomediakings.org/time_management_for_anarchists/free_anarchomic_released.html)).

------
10ren
Much of achievement is circumstantial: a product takes off because people need
it (which is something outside the product). You notice a connection between
two things, because you knew about them both and happened to be thinking about
them. You can't _arrange_ to discover things that are unknown - by definition.
All you can do is be out there looking, doing things, trying things.
_Inspiration strikes he who is at the typewriter_

------
joubert
Talk about superstition.

~~~
dasil003
Why must hackers be so literal with everything? Just talking about inspiration
as coming from an external entity doesn't imply superstition, it doesn't mean
somebody has strong faith-based beliefs about the exact nature of spirits and
little green people.

If you're willing to loosen your grip on the necessity for all ideas to be
fact-based, and let some of the fuzzy in, the idea of a muse can serve as a
useful perspective on the creative process. It's a hell of lot more useful
than sticking electrodes on people and trying to quantify creativity with
statistical analysis.

Even hackers have muses.

~~~
joubert
"...we should view the brilliance as a gift from an unknowable outside
source..."

I'm OK with fuzziness, but mysticism appals me.

~~~
dasil003
Why? Because people use it to take advantage of other people?

~~~
gnaritas
As if that alone isn't enough reason.

~~~
unalone
Precisely. Any artist that thinks his mind isn't responsible for the beautiful
things they create is doing himself a disservice. Perhaps you will never fully
understand your mind, but that's a testament to _the power of your mind_ , not
a sign that a divine being is necessary.

Frank Zappa had an excellent quote about this. When discussing spiritualism in
music with a fellow musician, he said: "Look, these are just instruments. Find
out what the range is, and start writing." And that's what it is. Writing
music is difficult, and requires a degree of brilliance to come out with even
a comparatively mediocre song, but there's no magic to it. It takes work and
thought. It doesn't take superstition.

~~~
yters
Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something
outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation?

Even if we start with your premise, that it's only the person's brain, the
brain itself is an amalgamate of many, many other things, very few we have
direct responsibility for. So, even then, it doesn't make sense to take full
responsibility for any genius we may possess.

~~~
unalone
I find that a very repugnant attitude.

No, you don't live in a vacuum. Newton was indeed standing on the shoulders of
giants. But to go from there to saying you don't deserve responsibility for
what you've done is a grossly illogical step to take.

You could argue that Zappa did everything because of circumstance. You could
make a good and utterly meaningless case because of that, that everything is
responsible for everything. It's good because it's generic enough to be
obvious; it's meaningless because if everything causes everything it's the
same as nothing causing anything.

In Zappa's case particularly: I know of no other musician that learned music
through modernist composers and then translated that into rock music, who
started off playing drums in a small band, took control of that band, taught
himself guitar and became a virtuoso, and produced 90 albums in about 30 years
in every genre imaginable. Nobody even comes close in that regard, and nobody
has ever done anything like it. So, who's responsible for that genius? The
record stores, for selling albums that caught Zappa's eye? Zappa's parents,
for letting him buy records? The band members who ducked out and let Zappa
take control? Those aren't genius acts. The genius is the thing that Zappa
provided that came from him and him alone.

 _Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something
outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation?_

Shakespeare didn't. Joyce didn't. Beckett didn't. The author of my favorite
novel, Daniel Handler, is quoted as saying something to the effect that the
only sacred thing about his writings is that he took the time to revise them.
Bach wrote _for_ the church but I've never read something saying that he was
merely writing for God. The attitude stated here, that genius comes from an
outside force, is incredibly rare. I've never heard anybody who's made
anything truly extraordinary crediting anybody but themselves. The act of
creation requires ego above anything else.

~~~
yters
First of all, where do I say people do not deserve responsibility for genius?
They just do not deserve sole responsibility. I do not think genius is without
effort. Genius requires supreme effort.

But, do you think there's a difference between the deep insights we call
genius and someone who achieves a lot? I do. The people who are most
celebrated for such insights vs. only being prolific seem to have a common
claim to a transcendent source of insight. Off the top of my head: Homer,
Plato, Dante, Einstein. Plus, Bach dedicated his work to God, not the church.

Like the speaker says, people saying that they are the genius is very recent.
Having read a fair amount of the Western corpus, I'd agree. Makes sense too
from an etymological standpoint, since genius means some kind of spirit, like
genie. Plus, the individualist attitude seems to coincide with a derth in good
art, so it looks like modern artists are missing something. It also leads to
the really lame idea that good art means being totally original, which
actually results in no one being original and mostly just incoherent instead.
Finally, for what it's worth, my own experience validates this idea. Any ideas
that seem truly good to me seem to be something outside of myself that I've
grasped. Haven't you had this same experience?

~~~
unalone
"Insight versus prolific" is a tough thing to debate. Zappa fans believe that
the Beatles offered nothing to music. Some people think Sex Pistols are
nothing but noise.

We don't know much about Homer, Plato's concept of "the gods" was one that
said humans had their own free will and were _not_ tools of the gods (brush up
on Greek mythology, particularly Prometheus), Einstein gets called religious
but wasn't actually. Dante you may be right about: I haven't studied him
enough to know.

People claiming brilliance goes back as far as Shakespeare, who was known for
being hotheaded and arrogant with his writing. It certainly goes back further,
though I couldn't name specific names earlier than Shakespeare, who's pretty
much the perfect null hypothesis. If Shakespeare thought he was good in and of
himself, that means possibly the greatest artist of all time rejects this
theory of divine inspiration.

Art isn't about _originality_. It's about _personality_. Art is partly about
technical expertise, partly about artist ego. You only know yourself: the
process to genius in art is the process of discovering your own standards.

For what it's worth, I've never had that experience. I know exactly what
caused me to have the ideas that I do. I analyze my ideas until I understand
what drives me to create them. As a result, I'm extraordinarily egotistical.
It's why I thought it was worth denying the statements from the original post.

~~~
yters
First, to clarify. By inspiration, I do not mean that someone hears a voice
telling them what to do. Instead, I mean the person has a vision of something
higher, outside of themselves, that they try to replicate in their art. Maybe
you already think this, and we're just talking past each other.

Homer starts off the Iliad with an invocation of the muse. Read Plato's
dialogue Ion, where Socrates says exactly what I'm saying. Plus, you will find
the same idea in Phaedrus, Republic, and the Symposium. I'm not saying
Einstein is religious. He's obviously not a theist. But, he did think his
ideas were not merely constructs out of his own mind but following some higher
sense of beauty.

pg writes a similar idea in his essay on taste:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html>

He says taste is not subjective, not something people just create. There is a
timeless logic to it.

Finally, in closing, here's a relevant cite from the very end of Dante's
Paradiso:

As the geometrician, who endeavours

To square the circle, and discovers not,

By taking thought, the principle he wants,

Even such was I at that new apparition;

I wished to see how the image to the circle

Conformed itself, and how it there finds place;

But my own wings were not enough for this,

Had it not been that then my mind there smote

A flash of lightning, wherein came its wish.

Here vigour failed the lofty fantasy:

But now was turning my desire and will,

Even as a wheel that equally is moved,

The Love which moves the sun and the other stars.

~~~
unalone
Okay, yep! We secretly agree. I thought you were saying that all genius comes
from non-humankind. I agree that there's an objectivity to taste and that we
all approach it.

I'd differ, though, in saying that we are our own standard. The greatest art
is that which most reflects its creator.

------
jobeirne
What exactly the hell is a "quantum equation"?

~~~
ramchip
Discrete mathematics ;)

------
stuntgoat
I'll take two 16 ounce Mystical Fairy Juices and a two cookies, please.

------
jwesley
Everyone here on HN is genius, so even if a few get knocked off there are
plenty to step up and replace them.

