I spend a decent amount of my day trying to understand “genius.” How does a person become acquire intellectual or business genius? Is genius innate? Is genius just highly potent acumen or is it something supernatural? What are its affects? Is there such thing as an everyday genius? What becomes of the genius? Does insanity equate genius? Are geniuses always rejected (or misunderstood) by society?
Of course, all this thinking is out of some sort of envy of society’s geniuses. Ultimately I try to understand so that I can become, but we all know that too much understanding and not enough practice is just silly mental exercise. Nevertheless–
I recently wrote an e-mail to a former roomate and historian of science, referring him to an interesting (yet somewhat cliche) article on genius and the establishment. You can see the article by the New York Times yourself (you might have to pay for the article if it’s lived past its freebie-period). The article reflects the common American opinion that genius (especially genius in the commercial sense) requires some sort of discontinuity with previously established thought. In the technology world, geniuses bring about ideas for “paradigm shifts,” for new products, platforms, and services. However, NY Times would like to remind us that true shifts in thought rarely happen–and that the less glamorous side of productive genius is the everyday exploitation of new markets, products, and services…all with tools and frameworks that are less than flattering of their intellectual (or business-savvy) progenitors. So OK, Sergey Brin and Larry Page can bring us a wonderful rebellion in the world of web, but it still takes everyday foot soldiers to fight that insurrection.
In the face of othodoxies, establishments, and think-boxes, genius in the commercial sense has some sort of mystique as anti-intellectual or anti-corporate. This hidden genius is entrepreneurial. It satisfies social misfit while splashing on the stereotypes. Yet it still pulls in the green. Or in the words of my old roomate John Potapenko,
“…yes, but as the article hints one must be careful not to become the establishment itself. bill gates fought the ibm black suit mentality that computers belonged in governments and corporations and so became the granddaddy of the personal computer revolution. that’s visionary. now we have millions of PCs running the same uniform, buggy, and worst of all closed operating system and plenty of software patents to boot. that stifles innovation — the very kind of innovation that brought us the PC, DOS, and Windows. another ny times article.
examples of the visionary gone myopic abound. take einstein — difficult to find someone more revolutionary than a man upturning three centuries of physics while claiming space and time aren’t absolutes. he was in some ways the founder of quantum mechanics, but ironically wasn’t able to accept the core principles of this new field — that at bottom the universe is inherently unpredictable, but rather probabilistic — saying, “You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists”. no, the universe is far stranger than even einstein could imagine.
i don’t think that this myopia is inevitable — there are those that manage to renew themselves right up to senility. but momentum works against you and it takes energy to keep an open mind. google strikes me as a company that tries to fight this well, giving employees 20% of time to brainstorm on pet projects. so far it’s working for them.
but in the end we must realize our own individual limits. fortunately, nature provides the ultimate force of renewal: death.”
Hmm. A little dismal, but consistent. One day I’ll figure it out or hopefully just live it firsthand…
Or shall we be reminded by a little picture?
