> He was not particularly fast in his thinking nor was he mathematically gifted.<p>May I suggest that, the media tends to declare someone a genius if his work cannot be understood by laymen. Physicists like Einstein are declared true geniuses because the mathematics they use look mysterious and magical. But anyone can understand Darwin's prose. Personally, I think they are all human and by defining them as genius we deify them.
Not all the sciences have many really -famous- people.<p>Geology has developed a great deal in the past 2 centuries; not many geologists are "stars". How many people can name those among the most influential geologists?<p>Apart from Darwin, who most people wouldn't think of as a geologist! And yet ... <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/darwin-geologist-first-and-last/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/darwin-g...</a>
Certain people have an exceptional ability to communicate their thoughts and ideas. Now imagine if someone didn’t have that same mental quickness, or struggles to turn parallel thought process into serial form. Now assume that work was not quantitative but more qualitative in nature. Seems obviously that these people are all around us but it will be difficult to identify them as a genius before their ideas are accepted. Maybe MRIs will help us better uncover all of the various geniuses of the world so that we can take them a little more seriously. Entrepreneurship is interesting in this regard because it’s another way to potentially keep score.