# Genius (deserves a new thread)



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ok, so I am going to propose that there are simply skills which we obtain in lives we are passionate about and genius work in any field is being able to think on the spot to perform at an extremely high level.

Even a garbage man.

This line of thought stems from the question, doesn't everyone want to be a genius, is it really desirable for all to be the creative type (the sort of person typically associated with genius) when other jobs are necessary for society to function? 

I'd bet many traditional geniuses couldn't do average jobs due to their quirks.

So, I put the thought out that every life is valuable, equally, and it's the passionate vs the non-passionate that separate folks.

Discuss.

(not getting into morality)


This is Classical discussion, because so many composers are associated with genius.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What I'm really driving at is, being a genius isn't superior, if you even want to call it genius.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I have always thought of "genius" as a fleeting quality that a composer may capture in a work if they are lucky - once, but some manage to do it more than once. I am not sure if the word is best applied to the person instead of the work.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> I have always thought of "genius" as a fleeting quality that a composer may capture in a work if they are lucky - once, but some manage to do it more than once. I am not sure if the word is best applied to the person instead of the work.


That's another way to look at it. Could the work conducted by a garbage man be seen as brilliant if it shows excellent skill at the task at hand?

If it is measured by a third party observer.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I think that there are lots of people with superior level intelligence and creativity who could potentially have been a genius on the order of Shakespeare, Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Thomas Edison, etc. I've known some people who are very intelligent, well-read, cultured, and demonstrate a very rich imagination. I think that when it comes down to it, though, the difference is really in the work that a person can do. Are they willing and able to place the work into a field of study? Do they have the organizational skills, the time management skills, and other modes of discipline to make it all come together?

One thing that all the great composers had in common was ambition and a capacity for hard work. Even Mozart, whose music seems to flow from God's brain to the composer's pen and then comes together in a way that is seamless; even Mozart worked hard. I saw an interview with the lounge singer/country singer/comedian/actor Dean Martin when he was older, and when he was asked about his reputation; that he was lazy and half-drunk all the time; he said "Do you think I could get to where I am today if I didn't work hard?" Maybe Mozart (or Dean Martin) could make it _look_ effortless; but that doesn't mean that what they did didn't require effort. And usually the more effortless something looks, the more effort it took to make it look that way.

So, yes, there could be some garbage man, or a guy working in a gas station, who is out there and has visions of absolute genius running through his or her own mind; but maybe he just can't get those ideas to fruition because he's content working a 40 hour work week; he doesn't want to follow a protocol of that requires discipline; or he's content with what he has and doesn't need the world to know all his great ideas. I had a friend who was a garbage man and he had a nice house with a nice wife, nice kids, new pick-up truck, jet skis, nice car, swimming pool; maybe that guy was a "genius" in his own way.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Coach G said:


> I think that there are lots of people with superior level intelligence and creative who could potentially have been a genius on the order of Shakespeare, Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Thomas Edison, etc. I've known some people who are very intelligent, well-read, cultured, and demonstrate a very rich imagination. I think that when it comes down to it, though, the difference is really in the work that a person can do. Are they willing and able to place the work into a field of study? Do they have the organizational skills, the time management skills, and other modes of discipline to make it all come together?
> 
> One thing that all the great composers had in common was ambition and a capacity for hard work. Even Mozart, whose music seems to flow from God's brain to the composer's pen and then comes together in a way that is seamless; even Mozart worked hard. I saw an interview with the lounge singer/country singer/comedian/actor Dean Martin when he was older, and when he was asked about his reputation; that he was lazy and half-drunk all the time; he said "Do you think I could get to where I am today if I didn't work hard?" Maybe Mozart (or Dean Martin) could make it _look_ effortless; but that doesn't mean that what they did didn't require effort. And usually the more effortless something looks, the more effort it took to make it look that way.
> 
> So, yes, there could be some garbage man, or a guy working in a gas station, who is out there and has visions of absolute genius running through his or her own mind; but maybe he just can't get those ideas to fruition because he's content working a 40 hour work week; he doesn't want to follow a protocol of that requires discipline; or he's content with what he has and doesn't need the world to know all his great ideas. I had a friend who was a garbage man and he had a nice house with a nice wife, nice kids, new pick-up truck, jet skis, nice car, swimming pool; maybe that guy was a "genius" in his own way.


I think we are on a similar page. If you want to call creative thought and massive imagination and discovery genius thought, just accept it's just another type of skill, but not superior.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Now I think Classical/Jazz musics require more use of the brain to fully grasp, or at least can be enjoyed at a greater level of depth mentally, but that is just one type of music appreciation and neither better or worse than others. Now, that is what I prefer because it challenges me and I like that, but not all are looking for that in life.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

You haven't forgotten your old threads, have you?

*"Genius"* (Nov-22-2017)
"1. Is there any objective measure of Genius?
2. Is there any value we gain from using the word Genius?
I am still in the habit of claiming my favorites as geniuses, but something tells me that it only clouds our objectivity in measuring a work (I'm applying this strictly to the arts). Perhaps it's easier to measure in Science."

*Genius* (Jan-28-2019)
"I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work; high level performance in any field. It should not be limited to Arts and Sciences, for no job is easy.
To be an intellectual one must have skills and knowledge to carry out a task, and have deep thoughts about it."


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The term genius is thrown about too easily, but to be clear: one of the joys of listening to, conducting, or playing great music is because that close connection to genius. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms...genius pure and simple. Then there are the workaholic composers who studied, learned the craft and wrote some great music, but it falls short of genius. Very hard to define for sure. Is a person highly talented, well trained or Sojust a genius?

I've known some bona fide geniuses in my time: in mathematics and music. They are indeed different from us mere mortals. Some are just great people, some are so far above the rest of us that their rudeness and pomposity is excusable. Some are so weird that it defies belief: a party with John Conway in Princeton will never be forgotten.

And I would never denigrate anyone's station in life, their occupation or intelligence. The single smartest person I have ever known was a plumber. Brilliant, self-taught man who knew more about Wagner opera, differential equations, Schenkarian analysis, and quantum physics than I could ever imagine. Fluent in six languages, including Tagalog. Genius was not in doubt - he learned anything easily. And he played organ brilliantly. My plumber. Who knew?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> The term genius is thrown about too easily, but to be clear: one of the joys of listening to, conducting, or playing great music is because that close connection to genius. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms...genius pure and simple. Then there are the workaholic composers who studied, learned the craft and wrote some great music, but it falls short of genius. Very hard to define for sure. Is a person highly talented, well trained or Sojust a genius?
> 
> I've known some bona fide geniuses in my time: in mathematics and music. They are indeed different from us mere mortals. Some are just great people, some are so far above the rest of us that their rudeness and pomposity is excusable. Some are so weird that it defies belief: a party with John Conway in Princeton will never be forgotten.
> 
> And I would never denigrate anyone's station in life, their occupation or intelligence. The single smartest person I have ever known was a plumber. Brilliant, self-taught man who knew more about Wagner opera, differential equations, Schenkarian analysis, and quantum physics than I could ever imagine. Fluent in six languages, including Tagalog. Genius was not in doubt - he learned anything easily. And he played organ brilliantly. My plumber. Who knew?


I think there are only skills which you can obtain to live the life you want, and it's the passionate that separate folks.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't greatly like to rank composers or works but do recognise that most of the big names (Monteverdi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, Wagner, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg etc) _*regularly *_produced music that had something special and not commonly found in many of the works of others (who I may also love). I can remember a time when I was getting to know the music of such greats. A thought would come to me when I was first getting to know their music: I was just completely bowled over and would think _where did that come from?_ I was recognising something I now call genius. So, yes, to me the thing I call genius is necessary to produce music that is to me the greatest.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't greatly like to rank composers or works but do recognise that most of the big names (Monteverdi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, Wagner, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg etc) _*regularly *_produced music that had something special and not commonly found in many of the works of others (who I may also love). I can remember a time when I was getting to know the music of such greats. A thought would come to me when I was first getting to know their music: I was just completely bowled over and would think _where did that come from?_ I was recognising something I now call genius. So, yes, to me the thing I call genius is necessary to produce music that is to me the greatest.


I just think the term Genius does more harm to society than good. All it does is put one personality archetype and set of skills above another and call it superior.

I think you could, if you allowed yourself, or even knew enough about it, could be blown away by the work your mechanic does on your car. A car enthusiast would be, for example!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Geni don't believe in fictional concepts like certain composers' passages being 'better composed' than others. They're all relative to the purpose used for.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> Geni don't believe in fictional concepts like certain composers' passages being 'better composed' than others. They're all relative to the purpose used for.


Yes, friend, agreed! Good to see some like-minded folks on here.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just think the term Genius does more harm to society than good. All it does is put one personality archetype and set of skills above another and call it superior.
> 
> I think you could, if you allowed yourself, or even knew enough about it, could be blown away by the work your mechanic does on your car. A car enthusiast would be, for example!


I feel you may have misunderstood my take on genius or are perhaps confused about what the word might mean in our context. I don't think genius has anything at all to do with skills, for example. It is a less easily defined (and unteachable) quality and it takes us places we have not been before.

Knowing a little about vehicle mechanics - when I was younger I did most of my own vehicle servicing and repairs (all of it for motorbikes and anything that didn't require lifting gear on cars) myself - I doubt I would consider my mechanic a genius, good though he is. Luckily, also, he lacks the genius required to charge me far more than the job was worth.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I feel you may have misunderstood my take on genius or are perhaps confused about what the word might mean in our context. I don't think genius has anything at all to do with skills, for example. It is a less easily defined (and unteachable) quality and it takes us places we have not been before.
> 
> Knowing a little about vehicle mechanics - when I was younger I did most of my own vehicle servicing and repairs (all of it for motorbikes and anything that didn't require lifting gear on cars) myself -* I doubt I would consider my mechanic a genius,* good though he is. Luckily, also, he lacks the genius required to charge me far more than the job was worth.


And I wouldn't. All I see are varying personalities who possess different skills.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I liken the term genius in some ways to the term god, it was the first explanation for phenomenon occurring.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Thanks for responding to my joke ... but what about my more serious post? Do you think our idea of genius is just about having more or deeper skills? I wonder what you make of qualities like creativity (just a skill?) and new insights? Was Newton no more than an inn keeper of his time (with just luck making the one excel at maths while the other's excellence is sadly in a less valued and less historically relevant field)? Seriously, I'm wondering how you can equate genius with skill and presumably also saying that a skill in one thing is no more important to us than a skill in a different field.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I liken the term genius in some ways to the term god, it was the first explanation for phenomenon occurring.


Genius doesn't mean they are omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, immortal, immutable.

Its means they have an "exceptional intellectual or creative power or other *natural* ability".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Thanks for responding to my joke ... but what about my more serious post? Do you think our idea of genius is just about having more or deeper skills? I wonder what you make of qualities like creativity (just a skill?) and new insights? Was Newton no more than an inn keeper of his time (with just luck making the one excel at maths while the other's excellence is sadly in a less valued and less historically relevant field)? Seriously, I'm wondering how you can equate genius with skill and presumably also saying that a skill in one thing is no more important to us than a skill in a different field.


I acknowledge there are folks with great insights and creative power, but don't put it in a superior position to a janitor who could be just as excellent at his job.

I don't believe there are fields that are more relevant than others.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Genius doesn't mean they are omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, immortal, immutable.
> 
> Its means they have an "exceptional intellectual or creative power or other *natural* ability".


Most folks around here understand the amount of effort and time composers put into achieving what they did. THat's not to say nature didn't help, but it could also help with less traditionally regarded fields.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Genius doesn't mean they are omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, immortal, immutable.
> 
> Its means they have an "exceptional intellectual or creative power or other *natural* ability".


No, but both were the first terms used to explain things in a rather mystical fashion. I'm not saying just anyone could compose Beethoven's 9th with the right amount of hard work, but that's not to dismiss the life they do choose for themselves, and also, not to glorify the life of Beethoven more than what it was. He composed something which is well liked in today's society, and that's great, but it also isn't more than what it was.

Certain personality types set you up for certain lifestyles, and it's the passionate that separate folks from others.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think it's fine to celebrate the life of men and women we admire. A child may celebrate his mother for her contributions in raising him/her, or a teacher that was influential in their life...but sometimes certain folks are celebrated by society because of their contributions.

I wouldn't say they are better people, for we all know sometimes these folks lead awful lives but their creative output was tremendous enough to leave an impact.

This doesn't make them superior though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Thanks for responding to my joke ... but what about my more serious post? Do you think our idea of genius is just about having more or deeper skills? I wonder what you make of qualities like creativity (just a skill?) and new insights? Was Newton no more than an inn keeper of his time (with just luck making the one excel at maths while the other's excellence is sadly in a less valued and less historically relevant field)? Seriously, I'm wondering how you can equate genius with skill and presumably also saying that a skill in one thing is no more important to us than a skill in a different field.


Let's look at Beethoven for example. Horrid personality, such a bully and angry person. He probably could not be a cashier, and would be fired.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Really, you are joking. What does his personality have to do with the questions here? Or indeed how well he would have done in the job market of his day? And you still haven't explained why you reduce everything to skills, when clearly we are talking about something so very different. And you also seem to value all occupations equally in the world - including, presumably, the violent and dishonest ones. This is crazy. Your argument really no more than reducing all human achievement and occupation to just a question of whether the person doing a job is capable. Leaving aside genius and sticking to your preferred territory of skills, apparently you believe that a surgeon (a job no-one would want me to do) and road sweeper (a job I have done) are equally valuable and presumably then equally available.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Deeper skills - no such thing, all skills are valid. That's why I discussed Beethoven's personality in relation to his ability to be a cashier.

Creativity is a skill, you can teach some level of this skill too. That doesn't mean all who learn to be creative can compose Beethoven's 9th, as an example.

Not everyone can do all jobs, and that's fine, but that doesn't make one's preferred job/life choice less valuable.

I do not value the violent and dishonest jobs, or persons operating within honest ones in such a manner. Hence the morality comment in the OP.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Creativity is a skill, you can teach some level of this skill too. That doesn't mean all who learn to be creative can compose Beethoven's 9th, as an example.


That is just wrong. You _might _be able to treat people to think "outside the box" (de Bono style) but you can't teach creativity. Nor is it a skill.

I suspect - partly because you don't argue the case but just say it louder - that you are having us on with this thread. Or perhaps it seems cool to be so unwilling to ascribe any value to anything? I give up on this one.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> That is just wrong. You _might _be able to treat people to think "outside the box" (de Bono style) but you can't teach creativity. Nor is it a skill.
> 
> I suspect - partly because you don't argue the case but just say it louder - that you are having us on with this thread. Or perhaps it seems cool to be so unwilling to ascribe any value to anything? I give up on this one.


You go for therapy to help you learn how to introspect and thus express yourself. You can teach someone how to express themselves w music too.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)




----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There hundreds of separate activities that we classify as skills -- making music, composing, art, writing, mathematics, physics, hitting a Major League fastball. As with everything else, we can plot our innate aptitude for any of these on a Bell curve, and the outliers - the people who plot way out at the extreme end -- have the ability, through passion, hard work, and interest, to produce at a level we classify as Genius. Yes, it requires passion, education, and effort - but the aptitude is inborn.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It really all boils down to whether or not you want to put a certain type of personality in a superior light than another or not.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It really all boils down to whether or not you want to put a certain type of personality in a superior light than another or not.


Right we are getting on more solid ground - personality is a more accurate concept than skill for this subject - and your question is one I might attempt a personal answer: yes, I do. I don't have a problem with putting giants like Newton and Einstein and Bach and others on pedestals. I don't feel a (jealous?) need to say to myself "I work hard and get very good results in my field so I am just as good as they were" when they achieved so much more and had insights that nearly everyone else could not even imagine. I admire and value them.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

On the other hand...

https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/hard-worker-vs-genius


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ It refers to inspiring _models_(hard workers are said to be more inspiring than geniuses) for ordinary people. I guess they could never imagine being a genius - I certainly can't! - but can strive to become more determined and hard working. This is not the same thing.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ It refers to inspiring _models_(hard workers are said to be more inspiring than geniuses) for ordinary people.


No, it refers to models for _people_. It's making the point that perhaps there are more geniuses around than we think - we just need to work hard enough to find out.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I am not sure what you are reading in it. It concerns how the _perception _of subjects (university students probably) can be manipulated by what they believe to be the story behind two people whose creativity and genius is celebrated. There is no suggestion that the subjects can become geniuses. The report does in one or two places imply that only one of the two scientists (Einstein and Eddison) was a true genius but does this on the basis that this is a common perception and without going to the trouble of defining what they mean by genius. They are presumably aware that different geniuses have each arrived at their creations or discoveries by different methods. Some, for example, have to work hard while others can seem to arrive at some great insight without much apparent effort. So it is a shoddy report but even taking what they say as true it is still only about what people think rather than the truth of the matter.

Where do you think it is demonstrating that there are "more geniuses around than we think"? And what in their simple method could arrive at such a conclusion?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I am not sure what you are reading in it.


Here's what I'm reading in the article.



> The team suggests that being exposed to a stereotypically "genius" scientist makes people feel brilliance is a prerequisite to succeed - that it's essential, rather than an additional benefit. As many people don't particularly see themselves as innately brilliant, their performance - and their interest and motivation to do well in science - is therefore diminished.
> The successes of someone like Edison, however, might seem more in reach - his example suggests that scientific successes are related more to effort and self-control than they are to genius, making people feel more inclined to try.


So, if you believe in the notion of 'genius', you'd have to accept that it's a matter of chance to be born with an excess of innate talent, and if you don't see yourself as a 'genius', you're less likely to succeed. And the opposite is the case if you believe that 'genius' is more to do with exceptional hard work.



Enthusiast said:


> There is no suggestion that the subjects can become geniuses.


There is, depending on what you take 'genius' to mean. The suggestion is that if 'genius' is more to do with hard work than innate ability, those who are inspired by the hard workers are more likely to succeed.



Enthusiast said:


> The report does in one or two places imply that only one of the two scientists (Einstein and Eddison) was a true genius but does this on the basis that this is a common perception and without going to the trouble of defining what they mean by genius.


I think the article makes clear the distinction between one notion of genius - the innate ability - and the other - hard work. Of course, some might quibble and say Edison wasn't a genius because he only succeeded through hard work...but that is 'begging the question'.



Enthusiast said:


> So it is a shoddy report but even taking what they say as true it is still only about what people think rather than the truth of the matter.


I don't think it's shoddy, but without reading the actual paper and studying the methods and data, I can't be sure.

As for 'what is the truth of the matter'...what _is _the truth of the matter?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> ...some are so far above the rest of us that their rudeness and pomposity is excusable.


Being a decent human being comes FIRST-before anything else. I'd sooner populate the Earth with decent people than inhumane geniuses.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> Being a decent human being comes FIRST-before anything else. I'd sooner populate the Earth with decent people than inhumane geniuses.


Indeed. I think a lot of the geniuses that have walked this earth didn't even know that they're a genius. They just found something that they're passionate about and have become extremely knowledgeable about. Did George Enescu or Béla Bartók think of themselves as geniuses? Highly doubtful. If anything, they were just doing what they loved to do and found their own way in music. They were really just regular, everyday people who had extraordinary gifts. There are some cases, however, where some composers that are of the genius variety come across as aloof or are simply grade A ***holes, but I think sometimes it's difficult for people who have an almost outsider mentality to relate to others or they're simply socially awkward but, of course, this doesn't mean they're ***holes in many instances.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I'm not sure we can go any further with this. It seems you have difficulty interpreting a pop description of a simple social psychology experiment. You quote this from the article:



> The team suggests that being exposed to a stereotypically "genius" scientist makes people feel brilliance is a prerequisite to succeed - that it's essential, rather than an additional benefit. As many people don't particularly see themselves as innately brilliant, their performance - and their interest and motivation to do well in science - is therefore diminished.
> The successes of someone like Edison, however, might seem more in reach - his example suggests that scientific successes are related more to effort and self-control than they are to genius, making people feel more inclined to try.


They are not actually saying that the one was a genius and the other wasn't (hence their use of the word "stereotypically"). They are saying that that is how people like their subjects see the situation. (In fact scientists who study creativity see many routes to an insight ... including hard work .... without suggesting that some are more creative than others.) The experimenters appear not to care about what genius is (i.e. that wasn't their subject in this study) but wanted to show that people who believe that the Edison example concerns success from determination and hard work find that example more inspiring that an example of a scientist who was apparently so brilliant that he just arrived at a brilliant answer without any sweat.

Now, to quote you ..



> I think the article makes clear the distinction between one notion of genius - the innate ability - and the other - hard work. Of course, some might quibble and say Edison wasn't a genius because he only succeeded through hard work...but that is 'begging the question'.


The authors interest in the two notions of genius is not to establish it but to note that it is a common belief among "lay people".



> The suggestion is that if 'genius' is more to do with hard work than innate ability, those who are inspired by the hard workers are more likely to succeed.


No, I didn't find them suggesting that. What they are saying is that an example of success in which hard work rather than (stereotypical) genius is more inspiring for people because a breakthrough from hard work is more attainable for them.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I'm not sure we can go any further with this. It seems you have difficulty interpreting a pop description of a simple social psychology experiment.


No, I don't think I do have any difficulty



Enthusiast said:


> They are not actually saying that the one was a genius and the other wasn't (hence their use of the word "stereotypically").


I know. I didn't suggest they were.



Enthusiast said:


> The authors interest in the two notions of genius is not to establish it but to note that it is a common belief among "lay people".


I know. That doesn't invalidate what their research showed about common attitudes to notions of genius, or the implications for us mere mortals, which you acknowledge here:



Enthusiast said:


> What they are saying is that an example of success in which hard work rather than (stereotypical) genius is more inspiring for people because a breakthrough from hard work is more attainable for them.


Yes, exactly. I'm not sure what you're saying 'no' to when we both agree that that is what they've said.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Right we are getting on more solid ground - personality is a more accurate concept than skill for this subject - and your question is one I might attempt a personal answer: yes, I do. I don't have a problem with putting giants like Newton and Einstein and Bach and others on pedestals. I don't feel a (jealous?) need to say to myself "I work hard and get very good results in my field so I am just as good as they were" when they achieved so much more and had insights that nearly everyone else could not even imagine. I admire and value them.


Fair enough friend!


----------

