The question is really "Where have all the famous geniuses gone?" The answer is that you can no longer get famous just by being intelligent. It's just not a sexy story people want to read. People just want to shop and read about fabricated drama.
There is no genius, just various levels of domain expertise. We call geniuses those who concentrate most of their time and passion into one niche, and that niche has to be one that's popularly thought of as requiring smarts to fill. I approach genius levels of juggling a tennis ball with my feet, but I don't think there are Nobel prizes for that.
If there truly is a fall in the rate of "geniuses", I would venture to guess that it's because it's so easy to take an interest in so many different areas these days.
Exactly. The internet, and hence the (more) rapid liberation of information, makes available innumerable opportunities for curious minds to dabble. I've never been particularly interested in knowing everything about something. Rather, I'm much more interested in knowing a little about everything.
There's great value to be reaped from going extremely deep on a subject, but it's just so easy to become distracted these days. I'm reminded of Munroe's Nerd Sniping: http://xkcd.com/356/
I've had an idiosyncratic but highly useful definition of the word 'genius' since I was a little kid thanks to my mother. She taught me that a genius is an intuitive/rational thinker-feeler-person who was lucky enough to somehow line it all up for humanity in his/her mind and bring something big into the world that changes it for the better. If you think about all the real geniuses-- that criteria holds.
There is not much academic research into genius these days but there is research into intuitive people and intuition. And there is also related work in psychology about self-actualization and the other mental-processes.
But eventually it all comes down to someone doing something breathtakingly interesting-- you can't really roll that step off an assembly-line.
I percieve one of the problems with the world right now is that lots of the most highly-competent/skilled people are sort of holding off doing big things, esp. with technology. The number of intuitive man-hours that have been poured into the subject of online advertising is staggering. Those people working on that are capable of actual works of genius. But instead they feel motivated to work for a big company on long-term useless problems. But I understand this: if you look at what the last waves of true high-tech are i.e. computer/communication/aerospace/nuclear vs. what their "fruits" have been i.e. surveilance-state/police-state/military-industrial-complex/mass production and mass proliferation of WMDs. It's quite disgusting.
Anyway, I know why I'm working on "social technology" and "consumer technology" instead of "high technology."
This is an interesting post. The attraction of advertising is two fold: (1) its passive income; (2) its highly scalable. One of the problems with it as a source of "innovation" is that it is primarily an accelerant. It can either accelerate the adoption (a) of non-ad-tech; or (b) the accumulation of debt. Both of these can be "productive", but only up to a point.
I think you're right about the "attraction of advertising." But the real attraction there is that (1)+(2)=(money pump). And these companies don't seem to know what to do with the type of money pump they are capable of building. It just sort of piles up. :)
> But instead they feel motivated to work for a big company on long-term useless problems.
I remember this opinion also surfacing with the Steve Yegge OSCON 2011 presentation[1]. In which he complained about Google, and all the hard working people there, focusing on social media instead of hard problems. There was a good discussion as to why these problems are not in the forefront.
I think hard problem vs. social media problem is a false dichotomy. I wish people would focus on wise problems. High tech is too dangerous at this moment, even though it's the best stuff to work on long-term for humanity.
So you're saying that only good comes from "social technology" while mixed things have come from "high technology", so working in social tech is "morally" better?
I think social technology has enabled the surveillance of more people than ever before in history - a more than mixed bag. Not only that, new graph theoretical approaches that come from Facebook, Google etc. can easily be used to track humans using non-social technology, as well.
I don't see this as a good/bad/moral calculation. I see it as a practical calculation. We don't need to go into the moral domain when the cause and effect domain is capable of completely outlining the problem.
Working on high tech is dangerous as long as the world is run by warlords and the USA is a surveillance/police state. The last several rounds of high-tech have been utilized by a dynastic, authoritarian power-class to make the world a more horrible place while benefiting themselves, their families, friends, and other cronies.
I don't really believe in geniuses, but I believe in works of genius. Works of genius are at least potentially producable by a large proportion of the population, but not with any reliable frequency. Perhaps then a genius could be defined as one who is a prolific creator of works of genius.
Many of us have experienced that rare feeling of self-amazement of the result of the creative process. In could be in doing a drawing, composing a piece of music, proving a novel theorem, or writing software. When you create something, stand back and say; "how on earth did I do that?", "where did that come from?". That is a work of genius.
Then we would only need to define a genius as one who has produced a work of genius, and we'd have our geniuses back. "There are no generals, only those who have at one time attained the rank of general."
When we consider it at all, we're inclined to deny it,
deconstruct it, or explain it away as an "ideology of
genius." Geniuses of the past seem to have been perched on
their pedestals so that we might drag them down. "People
love to come up with reasons for saying Shakespeare was not
a genius,"
Rihanna, Jay-Z and Serena Williams all make me squirm. When I consider them at all, I'm inclined to deny her or reconstruct her. When I read her twitter account about the Indonesian sex show or the illegal photo shoot in front of the Taj Mahal I'm inclined to deny him/her or explain them away as an "ideology of genius". Geniuses of the past seem to have been perched on their pedestals so that we might drag them down. "People love to come up with reasons for saying Rihanna was not a genius,"
Mathematicians are famous among people branded as "nerds" and "geeks." I know who many of them are, but I'm a huge nerd.
If I had to name one living mathematician that's famous by the standards of popular culture, the obvious choice would be John Nash. They made a Hollywood movie about him, thus he became a household name.
Pretty soon, when the Alan Turing movie starring Benedict Cumberbatch hits theaters, he'll become a household name as well. I know that he's passed, but I ran out of famous mathematicians after the first one.
I would love it if people who actually contributed towards the betterment of mankind became a bigger deal than pop stars, actors, and athletes, but most people simply aren't smart enough to recognize what really matters in life.
If Perelman had just taken his prize and money like most others would have, I most certainly would not know who he is today. Avoiding fame is clearly not where his genius lies.
Maybe the whole concept of genius is a bit aged, weird and odd to start with? A glorified genius-concept comes uncomfortably close to the concept of a führer.
I think all men are created equal and when someone looks way smarter than the rest, most often he is just faking it?
They're where they always were: hindsight. There are tons of brilliant people, but it takes a good chunk of temporal separation to be able to spot them through history and see their world-changing contributions. And mistakenly attribute things to them, and forget the shoulders they stood on, making them into even bigger geniuses.
I think the "genius" is kind of a byproduct of transition from faith-centered worldview to knowledge-centered worldview. At the time of mentioned geniuses people were just starting to tend away from the faith in god, so the faith in higher powers partially persisted, and labeling people with great achievements as "geniuses" and making it feel like they have something others don't felt like a common sense and intuitive thing to do. So the "genius" might just be a temporary placeholder for the void that left when god was gone. As the void shrank with time, because the religion lost influence and people got better education, the need for people to have something greater then them, i.e. "geniuses" shrank too.
34 comments
[ 471 ms ] story [ 841 ms ] threadIf there truly is a fall in the rate of "geniuses", I would venture to guess that it's because it's so easy to take an interest in so many different areas these days.
There's great value to be reaped from going extremely deep on a subject, but it's just so easy to become distracted these days. I'm reminded of Munroe's Nerd Sniping: http://xkcd.com/356/
There is not much academic research into genius these days but there is research into intuitive people and intuition. And there is also related work in psychology about self-actualization and the other mental-processes.
But eventually it all comes down to someone doing something breathtakingly interesting-- you can't really roll that step off an assembly-line.
I percieve one of the problems with the world right now is that lots of the most highly-competent/skilled people are sort of holding off doing big things, esp. with technology. The number of intuitive man-hours that have been poured into the subject of online advertising is staggering. Those people working on that are capable of actual works of genius. But instead they feel motivated to work for a big company on long-term useless problems. But I understand this: if you look at what the last waves of true high-tech are i.e. computer/communication/aerospace/nuclear vs. what their "fruits" have been i.e. surveilance-state/police-state/military-industrial-complex/mass production and mass proliferation of WMDs. It's quite disgusting.
Anyway, I know why I'm working on "social technology" and "consumer technology" instead of "high technology."
I remember this opinion also surfacing with the Steve Yegge OSCON 2011 presentation[1]. In which he complained about Google, and all the hard working people there, focusing on social media instead of hard problems. There was a good discussion as to why these problems are not in the forefront.
[1] http://youtu.be/vKmQW_Nkfk8?t=5m47s
Subsequent discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2811818
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2011/07/hacker-news-fires-st...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2814032
I think social technology has enabled the surveillance of more people than ever before in history - a more than mixed bag. Not only that, new graph theoretical approaches that come from Facebook, Google etc. can easily be used to track humans using non-social technology, as well.
Working on high tech is dangerous as long as the world is run by warlords and the USA is a surveillance/police state. The last several rounds of high-tech have been utilized by a dynastic, authoritarian power-class to make the world a more horrible place while benefiting themselves, their families, friends, and other cronies.
Many of us have experienced that rare feeling of self-amazement of the result of the creative process. In could be in doing a drawing, composing a piece of music, proving a novel theorem, or writing software. When you create something, stand back and say; "how on earth did I do that?", "where did that come from?". That is a work of genius.
Enough said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
As a primary example - I'm pretty sure he knows better than to become famous for his work.
Mathematicians are famous among people branded as "nerds" and "geeks." I know who many of them are, but I'm a huge nerd.
If I had to name one living mathematician that's famous by the standards of popular culture, the obvious choice would be John Nash. They made a Hollywood movie about him, thus he became a household name.
Pretty soon, when the Alan Turing movie starring Benedict Cumberbatch hits theaters, he'll become a household name as well. I know that he's passed, but I ran out of famous mathematicians after the first one.
I would love it if people who actually contributed towards the betterment of mankind became a bigger deal than pop stars, actors, and athletes, but most people simply aren't smart enough to recognize what really matters in life.
Contrast with Messrs. Einstein, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Darwin, and Newton.
I think all men are created equal and when someone looks way smarter than the rest, most often he is just faking it?
I think all men are created equal and when someone looks way taller than the rest, most often he is just wearing platform shoes?