# Why is genius so rare?



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2012)

An interesting question. Suppose there was a way to identify, recruit and mentor people with genius level intellects and harness their insights?

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/why-is-genius-so-rare.html



> *Why is genius so rare?*
> 
> If you are interested in creative genius, I would recommend two books:
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (22 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Suppose there was a way to identify, recruit and mentor people with genius level intellects and harness their insights?



Oscar Levant was mentored by composer George Gershwin, and offerred a couple of insights on the subjest:

"There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I have crossed that line." 

"What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left."

From, "A Talent for Genius: The Life and Times of Oscar Levant":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1879505398/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books


----------



## bridges (22 Jun 2012)

:goodpost:    ;D

Along similar lines, the part I find most telling in the original quote is this:



> ...there is the higher than normal risk of (self) sabotage by mental illness and addiction, there are the problems of a higher than usual probability of an abrasive or antisocial personality - and (as Murray identifies) the likelihood that for a person to aim very high requires a belief in transcendental values (the beautiful, the truth, virtue) - and that some societies (such as our own) lack this belief.



It's opinion, not necessarily truth - but certainly interesting.


----------



## Maxadia (22 Jun 2012)

Perhaps genius is not so rare, as is the ability to take a genius and have them propser in a situation or society where their talents can be recognized.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Perhaps genius is not so rare, as is the ability to take a genius and have them propser in a situation or society where their talents can be recognized.


Or, to look at the other side of the same coin, to change society/the institution so that the qualities of said genius aren't crushed into the earth like a cigarette butt.


----------



## Nemo888 (22 Jun 2012)

Having a large number of geniuses would not be of any evolutionary benefit. They should be rare. Few are needed to deal with the times of extreme change that need creative thinkers to solve complex problems.

Navel gazing and daydreaming are not very productive endeavours when their is work to be done. I expect the percentage is a function of genetics and different races probably have different percentages that would reflect the amount environmental instability those groups lived in.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jun 2012)

Reminds me of the urban legend about Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn ( supposedly ) told him she wanted to have a child with  her looks and his brain. Einstein is said to have responded: "Ah, but what if it had my looks and your brain?"


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2012)

Clearly, genius is so rare because there is only one of me.  ;D


----------



## bridges (22 Jun 2012)

Hands up, who feels that they are a genius whose qualities have been crushed by an unappreciative or inhospitable society?


----------



## larry Strong (22 Jun 2012)

Cause God love's stupid people......


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Clearly, genius is so rare because there is only one of me.  ;D


Which also accounts for the rarity of humilty, right? ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jun 2012)

Many years ago I came across a couple of sayings in Thomas Edison's winter home in Fort Myers, Florida that were attributed to him. 

They were:

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.

There has to be a better way. Find it!


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Hands up, who feels that they are a genius whose qualities have been crushed by an unappreciative or inhospitable society?


I'm certain _*nobody*_ in the CF (or any organization, or even society, for that matter) has seen anyone whose truly good, worksaving and within-the-rules ideas been poo-poo'ed, ignored or attacked...... </sarcasm>


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Hands up, who feels that they are a genius whose qualities have been crushed by an unappreciative or inhospitable society?



What we need is a Hero Compact:

IT in the Age of the Empowered Employee

Incremental innovation and process improvements have always come from those closest to the problem. It's the basis of kaizen, a system where employees continually improve manufacturing processes. It's also a founding principle of Six Sigma — tap employees' relentless, incremental quality improvements.

The same is true in the way employees are harnessing consumer technologies — social, mobile, video, and cloud. They're improving how they do their jobs and solving your customer and business problems. And it's not just a few employees; it's a critical mass of employees. In a survey of more than 4,000 U.S. information workers, we found that 37% are using do-it-yourself technologies without IT's permission. LinkedIn, Google Docs, Smartsheet.com, Facebook, iPads, YouTube, Dropbox, Flipboard — the list is long and growing. Many of these scenarios are do-it-yourself projects. For example, want to ask me business questions on Facebook? Piece of cake, I'll just friend you. Personal iPhones for email, apps, and Internet access outside my clients' door? Check. Google Sites and Docs to exchange documents with partners? Sure, I can spin up a free site or IT can spend the $50/user/year and make it secure. YouTube to post fix-it-yourself videos for tough service problems? My kid's good with a Flip camera. She can film me doing the fix myself. 

In all of these real cases, an employee figured out a better way to solve a customer or business problem without IT's help. Call it the consumerization of IT; call it harnessing the groundswell; call it Technology Populism. It's all the same thing: individuals harnessing readily available social, mobile, video, and cloud technology to solve customer and business problems.
In our new book, Empowered, we call these covert innovators HEROes — highly empowered and resourceful operatives. HEROes are those employees who feel empowered to solve customer problems and act resourcefully by using whatever technology they need to use. HEROes comprise 20% of the U.S. information workforce, but your industry may have many more or many fewer highly empowered and resourceful operatives.

It's all well and good to have employees solving customer problems. But chaos and rogue behavior is not okay. To identify the employee initiatives that are worth pursuing and figure out how to make them safe and enterprise-grade, your IT organization needs to get involved.
Peter Hambling, the CIO of Lloyd's of London, recently shared a story with us about Facebook and iPhone. A sales person wanted to use Facebook to talk to a client. An underwriter wanted to use a smartphone to access key account and policy information while away from their computer. The business manager and IT security professional feared the unknown and shut down both solutions.

As a CIO with business acumen, Hambling understood that he and his IT organization needed a new contract with business managers and employees that allowed him to help with technology solutions while sharing the responsibility for business risk with employees and managers. To get it done, he took the business case to the board of directors and got permission to proceed with caution and with a clear eye on the tradeoff between business value and business risk.
They didn't stop with Facebook and iPhone. They've also embedded IT staff directly into the cubicle farms of business employees; they've built innovative solutions with teams comprised of business and IT employees; they've created applications that empower employees to understand global risk through a familiar interactive map. They created a new contract with business managers and employees that gives IT professionals a place in the business.
Hambling exemplifies one of the key action items that we've discovered: Make new technology risk a business problem to be managed rather than an IT problem to be stifled. And that requires a new way of thinking and of working.

We spoke with hundreds of people when researching Empowered. In discovering their solutions to these thorny empowered technology problems, we identified a new contract that's emerging between IT, business managers, and employees. We call it the HERO Compact and it looks like this:

In the HERO Compact, there is a real give and take needed between employees, managers, and IT in this empowered era. Employees need to step up and behave responsibly (which means HR needs to be involved). Business managers need to roll up their sleeves and learn enough about the technology to understand the potential risks. (Managers also need to encourage and reward experimentation.) IT needs to assess and mitigate technology risk. And that means IT staff need to be much closer to business employees and activities so that they can help with technology platforms. And everybody must put technology-induced risk into its proper business context. It's a new set of priorities all the way around.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/09/it_in_the_age_of_empowered_employees.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jun 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Many years ago I came across a couple of sayings in Thomas Edison's winter home in Fort Myers, Florida that were attributed to him.
> 
> They were:
> 
> ...



Attributed to what they consider one of the great inventors, when really all he had was the money to employ a bunch of very smart people. All he did was keep them paid and focused. He, as the owner, also got to showcase all the neat things that his workers invented, thereby making it look like he invented them.

He provided the inspiration (wages) they provided the perspiration (Invention and development). 
Which comes through in his quote.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Jun 2012)

It just _seems_ like genius is truly scarce......if you spend any time reading the Recruiting threads.


----------



## GAP (22 Jun 2012)

Why is genius so rare? because there is NO cure for stupid....


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Why is genius so rare? because there is cure for stupid....



...uh, shouldn't that be 'because there is *no *  cure for stupid(ity)'...?


----------



## GAP (22 Jun 2012)

:facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman (22 Jun 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> :facepalm:


:rofl:   Pretty funny, considering the thread.    ;D


----------



## GAP (22 Jun 2012)

Ah....come on...gimme a break here.....I admitted there was no cure...... ;D


----------



## bridges (25 Jun 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> They've also embedded IT staff directly into the cubicle farms of business employees;



That part made me laugh, given the direction that the GoC is taking in terms of centralizing IT.

While the original quote dealt with geniuses, i.e., a "tiny group of highly intelligent people", there's a huge capacity for innovation within the broader population, which is not being harnessed either - and, in many cases, is actively discouraged.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Ah....come on...gimme a break here.....I admitted there was no cure...... ;D


Meh...I took it the way you said it, as deliberately ironic.  No error there.


----------



## medicineman (25 Jun 2012)

I wonder if they gave thought to studying why common sense is rarer now than genius...

MM


----------



## bridges (25 Jun 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I wonder if they gave thought to studying why common sense is rarer now than genius...
> 
> MM



One of the troubles with that is that everyone thinks their own way of thinking = common sense.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Jun 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> One of the troubles with that is that everyone thinks their own way of thinking = common sense.



And the social media provide all sorts of opportunities for people to demonstrate just how bubble-headed they really are. Too many commentators are like pop bottles - empty from the neck up.


----------



## medicineman (25 Jun 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> One of the troubles with that is that everyone thinks their own way of thinking = common sense.



Are you saying that you're the only one in step then?

 ;D

MM


----------



## bridges (25 Jun 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Are you saying that you're the only one in step then?
> 
> ;D
> 
> MM



 ;D  You know it!


----------



## Greymatters (11 Jul 2012)

It should also be considered that some people out there are too liberal with slapping the title of 'genius' on people; as an example three people I recall in the past as being called 'geniuses' were Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Belinda Stronach.  Does any body regard any of these three as being on a par with Machiavelli, Michaelangelo, or Mercer?

(Not sure if Rick Mercer can really be called an intellectual genius, but got to admit he's a genius at comedy...)


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Jul 2012)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> It should also be considered that some people out there are too liberal with slapping the title of 'genius' on people; as an example three people I recall in the past as being called 'geniuses' were Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Belinda Stronach.  Does any body regard any of these three as being on a par with Machiavelli, Michaelangelo, or Mercer?
> 
> (Not sure if Rick Mercer can really be called an intellectual genius, but got to admit he's a genius at comedy...)




There are two big things that make it difficult to study genius:

•The genius label is subjective. Some people insist that anyone with an intelligence quotient (IQ) higher than a certain value is a genius. Others feel that IQ tests measure only a limited part of a person's total intelligence. Some believe high test scores have little to do with real genius.

•Genius is a big-picture concept. Most scientific and medical inquiries, on the other hand, examine details. A concept as subjective as genius isn't easy to quantify, analyze or study.

­So, when exploring how geniuses work, it's a good idea to start by defining precisely what a genius is. For the purpose of this article, a genius isn't simply someone with an exceptionally high IQ. Instead, a genius is an extraordinarily intelligent person who breaks new ground with discoveries, inventions or works of art. Usually, a genius's work changes the way people view the world or the field in which the work took place. In other words, a genius must be both intelligent and able to use that intelligence in a productive or impressive way.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/genius.htm


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Jul 2012)

Interesting read here: What child prodigies and autistic people have in common


----------



## GnyHwy (11 Jul 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ­So, when exploring how geniuses work, it's a good idea to start by defining precisely what a genius is. For the purpose of this article, a genius isn't simply someone with an exceptionally high IQ. Instead, a genius is an extraordinarily intelligent person who breaks new ground with discoveries, inventions or works of art. Usually, a genius's work changes the way people view the world or the field in which the work took place. In other words, a genius must be both intelligent and able to use that intelligence in a productive or impressive way.
> 
> http://people.howstuffworks.com/genius.htm



I agree.  Two other ways to look at it are:

1.  I watched a show that had a world class pianist that everyone considered to be a genius.  He insisted that he was just a world class pianist, and was not a genius.  Although he was likely being humble, it makes sense.  You can be extremely skilled or intelligent at the world class level and not be a genius.  Genius is the ability to expand and create.  Musicians duplicate, and artists create.

2.  Another way is thinking of peoples abilities, skills, and intelligence in 4 levels.  Level 1 is memorization, and the lowest level.  Level 2 is comprehension.  Level 3 is the ability to explain or teach.  Level 4 is the ability to innovate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2012)

http://216.224.180.96/~prom/oldsite/


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Jul 2012)

Because there is only one of ME! 8)


----------



## GnyHwy (12 Jul 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://216.224.180.96/~prom/oldsite/



130 thousandth of the world is approximately 54000 people.  That's like one Chinese university.  Further, Asia makes up 4/7 of the world's population, yet I don't see any orientals on their staff.  I think it's either fake or racist. :nod:


----------



## GnyHwy (12 Jul 2012)

.


----------

