TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Exploring the nature of genius

64 点作者 acconrad超过 4 年前

14 条评论

thewarrior超过 4 年前
This is a good piece that goes into the complexity of the idea of Genius. We’re taking individuals who’ve had a large impact on society and then saying that this is caused by some hidden factor called genius. We then ask if this genius is present in all of us or can it be developed. Now this obviously has a lot of limitations.<p>I doubt my own opinions on genius will have much credibility given I’m not not one. But studying geniuses it seems to me that developing an intuition for the subject is what truly sets them apart. Einstein had the impact he did because somehow he knew what areas to work on. In the sea of confusion and subjects floating around at the time he zeroed in on Brownian motion, Relativity, Photoelectric effect and Lasers. Any one of these is enough to go down in history as one of the greats.<p>I have a friend who’s extremely intelligent. What I’m often surprised by is the speed of thinking. It seems way too quick to be the result of any rational deliberation. Kind of reminds of the policy and value networks in alpha go. Their brains are wired to search much more effectively through the search space.<p>The other aspect is meta cognition. They understand their own abilities and how they improve . Which means they are able to train themselves with an efficiency we cannot.
评论 #25938012 未加载
rendall超过 4 年前
I know well the ex-wife and children of the inventor of an influential computer language. According to them, this language is his obsession to the exclusion of all else. They describe him as &quot;an asshole&quot;. He habitually berated his children for not being passionate about anything. He is famous, but lost his family.<p>I think about this fellow often, when I worry that I&#x27;m not fulfilling my potential. If genius means emotional misery for my family, then I am fine with more pedestrian accomplishments
评论 #25941698 未加载
评论 #25941417 未加载
评论 #25941813 未加载
curation超过 4 年前
I had a high school teacher who used my IQ test results to justify my &#x27;old soul&#x27; status enough to sexually assault me. As a working class person, most of my friends did not finish highschool or go to college and I did but I hated the people there. My father skipped to grades and got a full scholarship to the University of Toronto quit and joined the Hells Angels and died at 40. I found my groove (my partner is a finnish physicist) but the ability to read and think fast in the context of female and working class can be hell - at least in one&#x27;s youth.
WhompingWindows超过 4 年前
Interesting, but ultimately overly self-centered essay lacking real substance and evidence.<p>1. Gripe: Why do authors seek to write auto-biographical introductions? I count 5 full paragraphs of intro into this self-admitted &quot;plodding&quot; professor, who is not a genius, nor is he describing the &quot;nature&quot; of genius in those paragraphs. It comes off unnecessary and self-centered to write 5 paragraphs about yourself at the start of an essay on the nature of genius, does it not?<p>2. Mozart is held up as his first great example of Genius. Mozart had numerous advantages when young, though: he grew up in an intensely musical family, his brain was adapting to music in his first 3 years and then he was professionally trained beginning as a toddler. If you&#x27;d been playing piano for 3 years and your brain was specially adapted to it, yes you could be a wonder of Europe if you were also still only 5-6 at the time. The exponentially faster learning that young children exhibit is well known: their brains are extremely neuro-plastic.<p>3. Further down the essay, once more, a few autobiographical paragraphs about his class and Yale, and waxing poetic on gender discrepancies, not about geniuses. The essay seems to lack focus on the stated topic, the Nature of Genius, not the Nature of Yale or of the writers&#x27; life.<p>4. After more waxing poetic and little hard evidence except for cursory mentions of the famous geniuses, I find myself waiting for the simple point: <i>genius is a social construct</i>. We are all cooperatively working together, and geniuses are those who are labeled geniuses based upon the impact of their output. To explore the &quot;nature&quot; of genius is therefore a confluence of exploring psychology, human networks, history, and epistemology, and how socially geniuses excel inside the network of thought.<p>5. IMO, modern schooling is quite time-consuming and limiting. I find myself wondering, didn&#x27;t the apprentice system where children had time to work on topics for a full decade longer, while younger, doesn&#x27;t that aid in the creation of greatness? Rather than our painters painting from age 12, they don&#x27;t begin working in earnest until age 22, up until which time their &quot;work&quot; consists of theoretical assignments, problem sets, and doesn&#x27;t touch the real world applications which greatness necessitates.
rramadass超过 4 年前
Genius = Various permutations of intensities of { Innate Talent, Hardwork, Imagination, Opportunity, Self Confidence, Curiosity, Environmental Context in Time } tipped over by &quot;Chance&quot;.
评论 #25938639 未加载
评论 #25939877 未加载
mynameishere超过 4 年前
To mention something he left out: first mover advantage. Consider the great number of geniuses in tiny, mostly-illiterate Ancient Greece, for instance. Consider the simplicity of Beethoven&#x27;s fifth symphony&#x27;s motif, or Dijkstra&#x27;s algorithm. You have to be there first. (It&#x27;s not that simple, natch...)<p>This rankles though:<p><i>...no absolute pitch – all things very necessary to a professional performer</i><p>I wonder why someone with so much musical education would think that.
Exuma超过 4 年前
Does anyone else feel like you&#x27;re at a weird in between with intelligence?<p>I have been developer for 15 years, and have probably put in over 15-20K hours of very heavy learning. I&#x27;ve produced well over 100 projects, and have had some very huge wins. I have an absurd work ethic.<p>In my small peer group, people constantly talk about &quot;youre smartest person I know&quot; and this makes me somewhat cringe on the inside, because in my mind.. the people who _I_ consider are actual geniuses, who have such an insane otherworldly level of learning ability, math ability, talent, programming ability (ie like John Carmack).<p>So, I constantly am called smart, smartest, etc, yet in my own head I often feel incredibly dumb because of the people who I look up to, and don&#x27;t even remotely hold a candle to. It feels like being stuck in a sort of no man&#x27;s land... where I have enough IQ to realize how little IQ I have.<p>I always feel like certain subjects often lie JUST outside my mental grasp and I must spend considerable effort to visualize it before I can understand it. For example, I&#x27;m starting to build an algorithm for trading and it involves bayesian statistics, and calculus, linear algebra, with a dash of machine learning. All things which have long been forgotten. I spent about 60-70 hours over a few days re-learning a lot, and making huge strides in understanding, feeling pretty good I just got such a huge chunk of learning done quickly, and then I go on youtube videos of math geniuses who probably accomplished what I did effortlessly in the blink of an eye.<p>I suppose I have no other question, other than does anyone else feel like this? It really kind of sucks, as I do highly value intelligence, and it would be different if I weren&#x27;t 1&#x2F;4 or 1&#x2F;2 of the way there.
评论 #25938838 未加载
评论 #25938485 未加载
评论 #25938204 未加载
评论 #25938092 未加载
评论 #25938739 未加载
评论 #25938868 未加载
评论 #25938103 未加载
评论 #25938543 未加载
评论 #25940153 未加载
评论 #25938718 未加载
评论 #25939924 未加载
herewegoagain2超过 4 年前
It reads like a rationalization for being mediocre to me, to be honest. The definition of genius by &quot;impact on society&quot; is obviously wrong. And it&#x27;s easy to selectively quote people who have something bad to say about a person to make them seem like awful people. Also doesn&#x27;t seem rigorous: are ALL geniuses awful persons? That seems very unlikely. Especially as there may be geniuses in the field of being &quot;good people&quot;.
kordlessagain超过 4 年前
&gt; If Mozart could hear in his head how the music ought to go, Leonardo, judging from his sketches, could simply see in his mind’s eye how the machine should work or the painting should look.<p>There seems to be some <i>thing</i> that allows creative construction of these things, in mind, as opposed to simple recall of the sounds or images, in mind.<p>For example, Mozart might have been able to creatively &quot;construct&quot; the sound of his composures in his mind, but just because someone has heard a Mozart composure performed and then can recall it later, in mind, that fact doesn&#x27;t make them a genius.<p>It&#x27;s <i>both</i> creating <i>and</i> hearing&#x2F;seeing it first that makes it special.
评论 #25941032 未加载
username90超过 4 年前
&gt; he quant types (mathematics and science majors) thought genius was due to natural gifts; parents and teachers had told them that they’d been born with a special talent for quantitative reasoning.<p>I don&#x27;t think this is because people told them anything. To anyone who is good at maths it is painfully obvious that some people get it much easier than others. I started out thinking that people just did it wrongly, but the more I tried and the more I watched people do things the more I realized that they simply were bad at maths. There is nothing I can do for them. Some people just lack practice and motivation, true, but most lacks the brains to do it, since you need to have at least some level of intuition and some level of rational reasoning capacity to get anywhere in maths.<p>For those who disagree, how do you explain the very large number of people who spends tons of time and energy trying to get good at maths but fails to even grasp simple concepts like calculus? Contrast that with the much smaller but still considerable number of people who aren&#x27;t really passionate about maths, don&#x27;t put in the work yet still aces the class? Many on the &quot;nurture is everything&quot; side simply believes that those differences doesn&#x27;t exist, the &quot;geniuses&quot; must have learned this beforehand or something else silly. But if you are one of those who aced the classes without even trying and see others try really really hard and still don&#x27;t even pass, how could you explain that without considering talent as a variable? That person doesn&#x27;t need to be told that talent is important.
评论 #25938063 未加载
评论 #25938134 未加载
评论 #25937934 未加载
评论 #25940594 未加载
评论 #25941433 未加载
playing_colours超过 4 年前
What does the latest research in neuroscience say about the nature of general intelligence, nature of talent and geniality? Are there any physical markers, I do not know, connections in the brain are established faster and more brain areas are triggered while thinking? Are there any more attempts to produce geniuses after famous László Polgár?
评论 #25944854 未加载
camillovisini超过 4 年前
Studying Lenin&#x27;s Brain: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brain.mpg.de&#x2F;institute&#x2F;history&#x2F;lenins-brain.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brain.mpg.de&#x2F;institute&#x2F;history&#x2F;lenins-brain.html</a><p><pre><code> When Lenin died of a brain hemorrhage in 1924, his brain was preserved in formaldehyde, where it remained for two years. In 1926, [German physician and neurologist Oskar] Vogt was recruited by the Soviet government to help establish Lenin&#x27;s genius via histological investigation of his brain. In 1927, Vogt gave a preliminary report on his findings in Moscow, concluding from his histological observations that Lenin must have been an athlete in associative thinking (&quot;Assoziationsathlet&quot;) - a conclusion deemed farfetched by some of his neurologist colleagues and adversaries.</code></pre>
ip26超过 4 年前
I would exhort everyone to read through to the end first.
LargoLasskhyfv超过 4 年前
Geniality is overrated.<p>The masses have more fun, as evidenced by:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=sBdo5WPsHM8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=sBdo5WPsHM8</a><p><i>FICKÄÄHN, FRÄSSÄÄÄHN, FÄRRRNSÄÄÄÄHN!</i><p>EDIT: JETZT ERST RECHT!
评论 #25940134 未加载