

The Cult of Genius - TriinT
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/25/the-cult-of-genius/

======
wheels
My favorite quote from Paul Graham:

"People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart.
And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the
worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because,
knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it
seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of
some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old
Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not
totally unlike your other friends.

Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to
work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe
in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do
what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then
it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.

I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose
between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one
is probably right."

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

~~~
MaysonL
I was in calculus and physics classes many years ago with a future physics
Nobel laureate, and I was better in both than he was :-). Of course, he kept
at it and I dropped out.

~~~
l0stman
What do you mean by being better? Having better grades than him or being a
better problem solver. Because most of the time, these kind of people follow
their own agenda and don't really bother to be at the top of the class.

~~~
jamesbritt
" Because most of the time, these kind of people follow their own agenda and
don't really bother to be at the top of the class."

That was always my explanation for _my_ grades. :)

------
volodia
What bothers me the most when I read this kind of stuff, is that there is no
clear reason why the success of Feynman & co. should be attributed to some
innate talent rather than to hard work, and yet most people firmly believe in
the former explanation. A very plausible reason for the 'genius' of all these
physicists is that when faced with challenging problems, they didn't despair
like most people, and instead tried experimenting with various approaches, or
temporarily switched to different problems. In fact, in many interviews,
Feynman himself claimed that 'intelligence' had nothing to do with his
success.

It's also interesting to observe how different the comments are on Cosmic
Variance and on Hacker News. Maybe the fact that so many physicists share the
views expressed in that post has something to do with there being so few
Feynmans, Hawkings and Einsteins.

------
ianbishop
I don't think that many of the people who appreciate Feynman, Einstein or
Hawking think they are as smart. If they did, why would they idolize someone
who is on the same level as them.

Having people to look up to in your field is inspiring. It forces you to work
harder and aspire to be greater in your field.

What if you worked in a field that had no one? Who does an accountant look up
to? What inspires them to get up every morning and go to work? Money? That
just isn't enough for some people, which is why you have such 'cults' (such as
the supposed Paul Graham cult!).

~~~
TriinT
I think you missed the point. A grad student who idolizes Feynman, Einstein or
Hawking does not think he's as smart as them (not even close). Instead, he
hopes he can make contributions at the same level of Feynman, Einstein or
Hawking. Maybe if he works really hard and is lucky, then maybe he can make
one important contribution.

People who think they are smart and have no track record of achievements are
just self-deluded, egomaniac, sick fools.

~~~
ianbishop
Again, what is wrong with that? I would take someone who is motivated, willing
to work hard and is innovative over someone is simply comfortable with the
likelihood that they will never contribute anything that will change the
world.

~~~
TriinT
We're talking Physics here. Let's not forget that.

A hard-working, motivated person does not need to be Einstein-smart to change
the world. There are many ways of changing the world, but coming up with a new
theory that dethrones the old established theory is probably the hardest and
riskiest way of all.

If I wanted to recruit someone, I would want someone who is motivated and
willing to work hard, over someone who is bitter for not being Feynman-smart
that is for sure.

The point I am trying to make is that people should set small, realistic goals
and accomplish them. Instead of one big goal, divide it into small ones and
conquer them one by one. Do not engage in ego-masturbation until you've
accomplished something truly Earth-shattering. Just keep working to accomplish
more.

~~~
ErrantX
One way I tend to look at it now is to put myself in perspective. I generally
go under the assumption I am pretty smart - whether it is true or not - and
that can often be a bad thing. It's often good to sit and consider the effect
such awesome minds (and I think it is hard to argue their contributions aren't
above and beyond what most "very clever" people will achieve) had on the world
just to put my own achievements in perspective.

The crucial thing of course is to understand that it is still possible to
achieve great things without reaching those heady heights :) (for example Von
Braun is little remembered in pop-physics but his [and his team's]
achievements changed the world substantially)

------
caffeine
Let's imagine that God's Book contains not only proofs but also the other good
Ideas of the Universe (QED, Enlightenment, Mozart's Requiem, etc..) For one of
these Ideas to become known to us, a human's brain must at some point "think"
it - by entering some physical/biological state (firing pattern?) which
encodes that idea.

Then the human search for these Ideas is really a search over an enormous
state space of all possible brain states. Some factors that can affect one's
odds of being first to exhibit an Idea:

\- Wiring: some brains are born prone to Idea states. Through plasticity,
brains can increase their propensity to represent Idea states. Also, some
brains are wired to acquire new states and evaluate them more quickly.

\- Hard work: entering & evaluating more states than other people, usually in
a small area, through disciplined investigation.

\- Inputs: the right knowledge at the right moment (Ideas are similar to each
other - cf. beauty as a correctness heuristic)

\- Blind luck

Some apparent characteristics of Idea states:

\- It is hard work to represent an Idea state (presumably, the easy ones are
those we are born to, and appear trivial to us)

\- Idea states appear to occur in clusters (cf. beauty as a truth heuristic in
physical theories)

\- It is difficult to define a distance metric between Idea states

\- Corollary: it is difficult to tell how far away any given state is from the
nearest Idea state

As far as I can tell, the author of this article is arguing that it is
unreasonable to stop searching simply because one's brain is not as Idea-
compatible as F-E-H's appear to be. This seems to be sensible advice - but one
must appreciate that it does diminish the odds.

------
321abc
"Godlike genius.. Godlike nothing! Sticking to it is the genius! I've failed
my way to success." --Thomas Edison

