Would you support the Genius Registration Act? 
I think your point is correct, but that the Gaussian distribution you suggest doesn’t require a second peak. As the curve thins out toward the right, the number of individuals becomes tiny. Of this tiny number, not all would have had both:
- the opportuity to exhibit their genius
- the benefit of their genius being recorded for posterity
When individuals drop out of the smaller and smaller group along the curve, it gets bumpy. And because the cuve is so thin already it might drop down near zero.
So there may well be a gap in the practical sense (geniuses we can identify), which creates the illusioin of a second peak, but in actuality the curve may very well be as smooth as it is at any point.
brickbacon,
I thought I was with you, but now I’m confused:
I can see that you didn’t use the word, but if you weren’t refering to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, what accomplishment of his thinking were you alluding to?
Or, you need to work on your writing ability. Apparently I’m not the only one who read your post that way. And I didn’t insult your intelligence, I just implied that you didn’t have much knowledge of Relativity. You do know the difference between knowledge and intelligence, right? Very few people actually have much knowledge of Relativity.
They weren’t “privy” to the same inspirations because they weren’t geniuses!! That what it means to be a genius. Where exactly do you think “inspiration” comes from?
Meh. Plenty of scientists were trying to understand the same things at the same time.
Honest, yes, but not necessarily correct. A genius simply doesn’t recognize that what he did was all that special. To him it might not have been. That’s the whole point.
Very interesting topic.
One thing I’ve observed is that genius can have a very large PR budget – plenty of really smart people who seem to make things look easy try to hide how much work they put in when nobody was looking. Which would tend to support the assertion that what we call genius is in fact desire and perseverance, combined with fortuitous circumstances. E.g., one of the greatest American musical geniuses, Mississippi blues singer/guitarist Robert Johnson, seems to have put a great deal of effort into not letting people hear him practice.
Not always though: Einstein was famously humble in his assertions that he had no special gifts. But you have to keep in mind that he was commenting from his unique perspective: recall his famous claim (that imagination was more important than knowledge) was made by someone with a lot more knowledge than most. Analogy: Wilt Chamberlain would have considered a 6’7" man short, but most of us would disagree.
And FTR, Newton was not being humble when he made that statement about standing on the shoulders of giants. If anything, he was being mean: the statement was made to Robert Hooke (a very, very short man), who was staking claim to many key discoveries in optics and calculus. Newton was furious with this, and wrote Hooke a long letter denying his claims. Essentially, Newton was saying, “While I admit to building on the work of my predecessors, I certainly didn’t learn anything from a dwarf like you”. (Source: An Underground Education by Richard Zacks)
I am not a physicist, but my understanding is that the special relativity of relativity(which applied to a universe with no acceleration) would have probably been devised by someone fairly soon after Einstein did, but the general theory, which dealt with the very tricky problem of acceleration, was further ahead of the pack. I’d appreciate hearing from physicists who could confirm or correct this.
Also FTR, Einstein didn’t come from a third-world country, but had to overcome a great deal of marginalization as a Jew in early 20th-century Germany and Switzerland.
Indeed, the failed search for ‘ether’ prompted Einstein’s assumption of a constant ‘c’. Poincare’s efforts assumed ether as present, Einstein’s didn’t. In a way, Einstein is correct that there is a genius in all of us. All I take that to mean is that in theory, any brain can discipline and evolve itself into a more efficient processor. There’s no ontological barrier. But practically, that doesn’t happen. So, it remains a romantic notion, and doesn’t invalidate the concept of genius.
But can the genius teach!?
Running in front of everyone doesn’t give
everyone the ability to run faster.
While the person out in front may be on
everyone’s mind, it is the ones who impart
their abilities that are simulataneously
forgotten and infinitely valuable.
If Jesus gave us his ability to heal, and
gave us the ability to give others the
ability to heal, we wouldn’t have the
slightest clue who Jesus is.
This is how it works with genius.
Geniuses make intuitive leaps and connections that are obvious in retrospect only.
There can be different kinds of geniuses. Obviously, Einstein was not a musical genius. His first album didn’t even go gold.
While Einstein’s special theory of relativity may have drawn on the works of others–notably Lorentz and Poincare–his general theory was wholly original. No one was looking at the equivalence between mass and weight. Even the special theory looked at the Lorentz contractions in a completely new way. Many of Einstein’s contemporaries–people far more brilliant than you and I–looked at Einstein as being in a completely different league from them. IIRC, there’s been some speculation that his brain was exceptional, with the area that deals with spatial reasoning being considerably larger than normal.
Going to artistic genius, has there been anyone writing in English who has had the influence of Shakespeare. Like Einstein, Shakespeare was simply operating on a different level, as his contemporaries acknowledged.
Going on a strict Bell Curve a cut off point for genius may be arbitrary, but since it’s doubtful that we will ever be able to quantify “Intelligence” as a single property and since persons of Genius often sacrifice other qualities for there particular talent–There’s some speculation that Einstein had mild Asperger’s syndrome, and in any event his political writings are breathtaking in their naivete–genius will probably remain a vaguely defined “know it when you see it” type of thing.
I note F.U. Shakespeare has made some of the points I made in para 1, but I think they bear repeating.
Which revolution are you attributing to Galileo? Surely he merely confirmed Copernicus’s heliocentric theory? Besides, didn’t the Ancient Greeks also propose a heliocentric model of the cosmos?
Galileo’s most important contributions to science were in Two New Sciences not Dialog on the Two World Systems. Galileo basically came up with the modern idea of inertia, discovered that falling bodies velocity varies with the square of the time, that heavy bodies fall at the same rate as light ones, and many other things. Galileo and Newton basically invented physics, although, like Einstein they did not work alone.
Also, Galileo’s astronomical observations–the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and the mountains of the moon–were very important.
Ironically he was defending Copernicus’ theory when it had already been superceded by Kepler. (Ellipses instead of Circles.)
Thomas Edison said that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. That may be true but the trick is in the inspiration. Many really smart and talented people can work a problem to death without ever having that 1% in inpiration.
A genius connects the dots that in retrospect may seem obvious. Or they connect them in a way that is completely unexpected. The merely very talented can recognize genius, but they can’t duplicate it.
Just come up with ONE law of physics. Or one great symphony. Or one world-changing invention.
I suggest that people commonly called ‘geniuses’ aren’t so quick to censor or toss out ideas because they’re different, or not ‘correct’.
IIRC Galileo was lambasted not because his calculations or observations were incorrect, but because ‘it just couldn’t be’.
Einstein, I think, was a bit more willing to ‘accept’ that his idea just might be so. . . even if it were a bit odd. I can envision others tinkering around and getting near the same answer but pushing it aside saying. . . "Nah, mass and energy can’t be the same, that’s stupid.’
Frank Lloyd Wright? How many other architects had similar ideas, but promptly crumpled the paper. . . 'They’d never go for that. That’s not proper."