Yes they were smart but not particularly smarter than many around them who didn't work as hard, long, & consistently. Btw thier denial of genius was both private and shared by folks w/out Nobels. I think they were signalling that called * genius* is earned not bestowed.
-
-
Replying to @davidarredondo
Wittgenstein is a good counterexample. Genius is characterized by identifying the most important problem, and the best way to make progress on it. Busywork signals absence of genius. The Nobel is usually not given for a lifetime achievement of data entry.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I think sincerity was a very salient characteristic of Wittgenstein. Also he worked his ass off! Over a long period of time. As did Russell et al.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
Wittgenstein wrote his most significant contribution very early in his career (which was mostly outside of philosophy). I think that Russell was a very gifted writer, and he even had a couple original insights, but he did not connect the dots in ways that others did not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I love/admire early Wittgnstn but don't you agree he tried MANY things and *failed* at many until he settled down to hard work of rework? You keep pointing to extremely hard work saying that maybe exists genius without it? Isn't that a cop out for those w/out discipline?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
No. It is generally not possible to deliver an exceptional result without prolonged deep immersion and focus. But it also requires luck, and often serendipity and an extraordinary combination of circumstances outside of your control. And note the age at which breakthroughs happen
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Perfect! So the construct of * genius* is realtively less important and other factors rise in importance. Btw if I were trying to use exceptions that *prove* me wrong I would try Chopin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
FWIW I agree with the actual geniuses that discussing the nature of genius in public has very little upside and dramatic downsides. Come to think of it, Wittgenstein, Turing, Feynman were just regular guys who happened to have good mentoring and worked very hard. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Most *genius* is not recognized in it's time anyway. This is where sincerity comes in. It is for love of truth, beauty, clarity that that which is called genius emerges. Think of Van Gogh, Everett, Chopin, Basquait, math guys we've never heard of, writers, Captain Beefheart! :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
Ah, perhaps I begin to see your point now... You see, I don't think that being a genius is virtuous. It is simply a rare condition of someone's brain, caused by a particular conflagration of events in the physical universe. That is entirely unrelated to what it's good for.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Also, genius is unrelated to whether it is recognized by others, or whether it happened to crop up at one of those historical junctures where it makes a big difference.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
..fairness and misfortune are constructs unrelated to whether *genius* exists or not but it is conventially viewed as a genetic or inheritable trait - which causes many a beautiful mind to give up too soon and or not work as hard in it's pursuit of truth, beauty or excellence.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.