ysabetwordsmith (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2021-06-29 06:04 pm
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2021-06-29 06:04 pm
Entry tags:
Geniuses
This article asks if geniuses are real. Gee thanks, assholes. It's not enough to be treated like a vending machine, now you want to play the erasure game. So just to be clear, every species has a range of intelligence, and whatever top portion you want to set is "genius." Sometimes it's pretty smooth and you just pick the top 10% or 1% or whatever. Other times there are sharp peaks and you're better off drawing lines based on those.
Labeling thinkers like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs as "other" may be stifling humanity's creative potential.
No, telling people it's good to be smart, and then picking on them for being or acting smart, is stifling humanity's creative potential. Some of the differences are very real and tangible. It'd be nice if people bitched about it less and cooperated more. Everybody just has a different mix of mostly the same traits. But some of the combinations do create pretty dramatic differences.
There are myths of creativity and these myths are usually propagated by people that have romantic notions about heroes, romantic notions about eureka moments. And these myths of creativity keep people from collaborating and it causes them to be a lone wolf.
No, what undermines collaboration is that it's hard for people on very different levels to work fluently together on the same problem. They aren't interested in the same problem. If they're forced to work on the same problem, they approach it in different ways. The dumber kids who picked on the smarter kids the rest of the day suddenly want to take advantage of them. Most smart kids get sick of this and say, "Do your own fucking homework." Very few adults actually teach teamwork skills like figuring out what each person is good at and dividing tasks that way, let alone enforce cooperation so that each person does their fair share. And then the same thing happens at work.
Kids figure this out pretty fast, and decide whether being taken advantage of is worth it in order to make people pretend to like you, or whether they'd prefer to work alone. Most nerds prefer to work alone. They accomplish more and faster alone than doing a whole team's worth of work for others who can't keep up.
To get a really good, integrated team -- which is useful for things like software development, where you need smart coders making products for mostly much-less-smart end users -- you have to find people with diverse skills, good teamwork, and not already soured on working together. That is not easy, and most companies don't bother.
Myth number one, the lone inventor. This is very dangerous because there is no such thing as a lone inventor.
Bullshit. There are plenty of lone inventors. This is because the nerd experience of working with others, or even telling them about your current project, is often bad. There are also people who invent things in teams. That's great too. Ideally, we should have and value both approaches. If you say lone inventors don't exist, they are quite likely to agree with you and keep their cool inventions to themselves. So then society gets less than if it was nice to them.
Labeling thinkers like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs as "other" may be stifling humanity's creative potential.
No, telling people it's good to be smart, and then picking on them for being or acting smart, is stifling humanity's creative potential. Some of the differences are very real and tangible. It'd be nice if people bitched about it less and cooperated more. Everybody just has a different mix of mostly the same traits. But some of the combinations do create pretty dramatic differences.
There are myths of creativity and these myths are usually propagated by people that have romantic notions about heroes, romantic notions about eureka moments. And these myths of creativity keep people from collaborating and it causes them to be a lone wolf.
No, what undermines collaboration is that it's hard for people on very different levels to work fluently together on the same problem. They aren't interested in the same problem. If they're forced to work on the same problem, they approach it in different ways. The dumber kids who picked on the smarter kids the rest of the day suddenly want to take advantage of them. Most smart kids get sick of this and say, "Do your own fucking homework." Very few adults actually teach teamwork skills like figuring out what each person is good at and dividing tasks that way, let alone enforce cooperation so that each person does their fair share. And then the same thing happens at work.
Kids figure this out pretty fast, and decide whether being taken advantage of is worth it in order to make people pretend to like you, or whether they'd prefer to work alone. Most nerds prefer to work alone. They accomplish more and faster alone than doing a whole team's worth of work for others who can't keep up.
To get a really good, integrated team -- which is useful for things like software development, where you need smart coders making products for mostly much-less-smart end users -- you have to find people with diverse skills, good teamwork, and not already soured on working together. That is not easy, and most companies don't bother.
Myth number one, the lone inventor. This is very dangerous because there is no such thing as a lone inventor.
Bullshit. There are plenty of lone inventors. This is because the nerd experience of working with others, or even telling them about your current project, is often bad. There are also people who invent things in teams. That's great too. Ideally, we should have and value both approaches. If you say lone inventors don't exist, they are quite likely to agree with you and keep their cool inventions to themselves. So then society gets less than if it was nice to them.
no subject
The fact that they do mention some things that are problems but look at them completely wrong! ARgh! Yes the othering is a problem! That doesn't make geniuses less real, it means we need to work on inclusion! Yes, it is good to involve a variety of people in creative processes and listen when non-experts have ideas! Again, work on inclusivity!
Also, while collaboration is a good thing, a great thing, not everyone is going to be able to do that. Some very intelligent people with really good ideas need to be able to do the first step, then you can pass it off to other people to work on other parts.
Seriously, if there weren't geniuses (is that the correct plural? I don't language well) so many things wouldn't exist. Little known basement inventors and people who couldn't be bothered to market their devices are still geniuses!
no subject
(Anonymous) 2021-06-30 03:04 am (UTC)(link)>>Also, while collaboration is a good thing, a great thing, not everyone is going to be able to do that.<<
Also, in regards to taking advantage, teamwork, etc, an inventor-genius and interface person could be a good team.
I find it's not people wanting me to do work that bothers me, it's when I am 'the vending machine.' A mutually appreciative and respectful relationship - especially where the other person is being supportive in things I cannot do myself - could be a great basis for a team.
That said, while I have been in inclusive larger groups, most of my best 'teamwork' has been in dyad groups. Too many people gets complicated.
Thoughts
Agreed.
>>Also, while collaboration is a good thing, a great thing, not everyone is going to be able to do that. Some very intelligent people with really good ideas need to be able to do the first step, then you can pass it off to other people to work on other parts.<<
That's one reason Marvel canon infuriates me. Tony Stark is an engineer. He is much happier and more productive in a workshop than in a boardroom. Stop trying to drag him to meetings. He shouldn't have to deal with people if he damn well doesn't want to. He should be able to pay someone else to do all the parts he doesn't like, especially since nobody else can do his job. And SHIELD was worse, literally wanting him only for his equipment.
>> Seriously, if there weren't geniuses (is that the correct plural? I don't language well) <<
genius noun
ge·nius | \ ˈjēn-yəs , ˈjē-nē-əs \
plural geniuses or genii\ ˈjē-nē-ˌī \
Definition of genius (Entry 1 of 2)
1aplural genii : an attendant spirit of a person or place
bplural usually genii : a person who influences another for good or bad
He has been accused of being his brother's evil genius.
2: a strong leaning or inclination : PENCHANT
3a: a peculiar, distinctive, or identifying character or spirit
the genius of our democratic government
b: the associations and traditions of a place
c: a personification or embodiment especially of a quality or condition
4plural usually genii : SPIRIT, JINNI
5plural usually geniuses
a: a single strongly marked capacity or aptitude
… had a genius for getting along with boys …
— Mary Ross
b: extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity
c: a person endowed with extraordinary mental superiority
especially : a person with a very high IQ
I just don't like the "-uses" plural, so I also use things like "mongoose -> mongeese" and "octopus -> octopi or octopodes." Genii exists as a valid plural of genius, so I tend to use it.
>> so many things wouldn't exist. Little known basement inventors and people who couldn't be bothered to market their devices are still geniuses! <<
Exactly. And the worse average people treat genii, the more genii will conceal their gifts or simply avoid other people. Plus the occasional supervillain. I'd really rather avoid those problems.