Why is genius so rare?

[a_majoor]

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:

Genius by HJ Eysenck, 1995

Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray 2003

Eysenck's is about the psychological basis of genius, Murray's more about the socio-political basis.

But why is genius so rare, even in places where there are a high concentration of geniuses - as there were here in England in the past few hundred years?

1. Genius requires very high intelligence - in a country with a high average IQ like England, this means in the top ten percent (above 120) and considerably higher for some subjects (e.g. mathematical subjects). But often geniuses are at intelligence levels of about the top one in ten thousand. Some societies have much lower average IQ than England.

2. Perseverance, self-motivation to pick-out and work in one area without need for external encouragement, autonomous indifference to the evaluations of others, ability to go it alone.

3. Creativity. This is Eysenck's big contribution.

Creativity is associated with a style of thinking that is relatively loose in its associations, inclusive in its linking of disparate elements - a style of thinking akin to that of dreaming sleep, psychotic illness, and intoxication.

Creativity is not positively associated with intelligence - or if so at a very modest level. Some societies with high average IQ have low creativity, and vice versa. European societies had (in the past) high average IQ and also reasonably high creativity.

However, creativity is moderately associated with mental illness, psychopathy and addiction - and also with impulsiveness and 'fecklessness' - with a lack of perseverance.

This means that most creative people, and most very intelligent creative people, lack the self-discipline and perseverance to attain the highest and accomplish great things.

Creativity is, in a nutshell, a bit crazy - and most crazy people are too disorganized to do much. But geniuses require to be a bit crazy, yet also do prolonged focused work - and this is a reason why there are so few of them.

So - high intelligence is very rare (and some societies have too low an average intelligence to generate more than a tiny proportion of very intelligent people).

Within this tiny group of highly intelligent people, on top of all this, to get the coincidence of a creative way of thinking with a sufficiently persevering personality type is very rare.

And among this small percentage of a small percentage, there are the workings of sheer luck, 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.

Put all these together and it is clear why in all societies genius is rare; and why genius is completely absent from most societies.

Further reading:

http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html

 

[mariomike]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bridges]

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

 

[larry Strong]

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

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]

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]

  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]

  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]

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!

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]

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

 

[GAP]

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

 

[Greymatters]

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]

:facepalm:

 

[Journeyman]

:facepalm:

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