A friend returned from seeing “The Aviator” not very impressed with the film, but did remark that he thought Howard Hughes was a genius.
I disagreed. Haven’t seen the movie, but I have read a biography of Hughes, and am knowledgeable about aviation history.
I think Hughes did some innovative things in aircraft design, but most of them probably would have come along anyway. He had a talent for mechanical design, but I feel his accomplishments came mainly from his access to nearly infinite resources.
Well a Genius does not his achievements make. I know virtually nothing about Howard Hughes. Just saying that a person can show signs of Genius without blossoming. He was a bit crazy in his later years right? That can be an indicator of genius?
As Edison noted, “genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.”
I don’t know if I’d call Hughes a “genius.” But he was creative, and able to turn his ideas into reality. Even infinite resources are no guarantee of success, and one can not dismiss innovation simply by saying it “would have come along anyway.”
Hughes was an industrialist, like Henry Ford, William Randolph Hurst, John D. Rockefeller or Bill Gates. And it really doesn’t matter how much he started with, because he spent a lot and still ended up with a lot more.
Hughes was definitely smarter than average, had vision and courage, and the drive to make visions into reality. I think that makes him a genius, but it all comes down to what you mean by “genius” and where you draw the line. We can’t really get anywhere without some kind of meaningful and objective definition of genius. What are the criteria?
Neither his wealth or mental illness is relevant to the question.
Certainly his wealth let him do the things he did, but he did in fact do them. He did identify and get much of the best talent around, generally treated them well (if erratically and often meddlingly) so they produced for him, but no other big-time truly works alone either. I wouldn’t call him a genius, but I’ll go along with “brilliant” and “innovative” and “driven”.
You can’t evade his OCD as an issue, btw - his obsessiveness over details (not all of them, he let a lot slide if it didn’t have his attention) had much to do with his successes as well as his failures.
He was certainly a colorful figure, and a ‘renaissance man’ of our day (well, grandparents day), but I don’t know if I would put him up there with Einstein or whoever…
I think he was a great facilitator. He didn’t just have the money, although surely that helped - he had the instinct for it. It’s not that he just made innovations that would have come sooner or later - he made the innovations that he knew would be successful in the long run. When you fly non-stop cross country, in a sense you owe it to Howard Hughes. It’s just sad what happened to him - often it seems that when people with mental illnesses have too much money, they just get crazier and crazier because they can afford to employ people to facilitate their particular insanity. (Or to buy a room and effectively wall themselves inside it.)
We still haven’t got a definition of genius on the table, and until we do, this discussion is IMHO, not a great debate.
We could define “genius” as “getting into the panties of Ava Gardner in her prime.” Well, maybe that doesn’t make you a genius, but it makes you something I’d rather be than a genius.