From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 15:07:16 EDT
What I've read of the interchange on genius seems to overlook central
tendency. Breeding outliers does not normally extend the range.
"Freaks" is an unfortunate term, though it is synonymous with the
technical "abnormal." Using the definition of "normal" as whatever is
within one standard deviation of the mean, high school graduation is now
normal, though, if my memory serves, it was not in 1900. As to
intelligence, on many scales, IQs above 120 and below 80 are abnormal.
Unfortunately, to say that the membership of ASA are abnormal would not
convey this to the general population.
There is also much sense in Edison's claim that genius is 1% inspiration
and 99% perspiration. The persons whom we recognize as geniuses in
various fields are usually obsessive. Painters paint. Composers compose.
Authors write. Sometimes it's nose to the grindstone, have to get so much
done each day. Other times they completely lose track of everything but
their work. This does not tend to make them highly desirable mates.
Recently a few women getting MBAs at Harvard Business School said the
information scared men away. It is not just genius that reduces
reproductive success, competence may be adequate.
I have observed that very talented people are sensitive to stimuli the
masses totally miss. In many cases, it places an extreme strain on them.
I recall hearing of a child with perfect pitch who could not stand hinges
that did not creak on key. I think this explains many of the problems of
gifted individuals that have been cited. This seems to hold in other
areas as well. Researchers recently claimed that victims of Krohn's
disease were hypersensitive to pain. Extreme awareness can be noxious, so
stressful that mental stability is affected.
There are certainly many other factors that enter into consideration,
like concern for college expenses among "successful" people that is not
evident among those of lower socioeconomic status. None of these should
be neglected.
Dave
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:31:06 +0100 "Iain Strachan"
<iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com> writes:
> in small part:
>
> > ---- On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Iain Strachan
> > (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com) wrote:
> > > But then there is the downside to genius. Geniuses are freaks
> > of nature;
> >
> >
> > While there is a correlation between genius and certain
> > personality characteristics, geniuses are by no means all
> > "freaks of nature." Many (if not most) go on to lead
> > extroidanary lives. For more detail, see:
>
> When I said "freaks of nature" perhaps this was an unfortunate term.
> What I
> meant to say was that they were people who are "outliers" in the
> distribution. Since evolution requires that favourable traits be
> inherited
> and spread throughout the population, it would appear that the
> genius
> characteristic does not influence the process of evolution in that
> way, as
> we are not all geniuses.
>
> >
> > > So how is it that the brain is massively over-specified for
> > what it is
> > > normally called upon to do? Is there an evolutionary
> > explanation for this?
> > > Genius, of itself, would appear to confer disadvantage to the
> > individual,
> > > leading to instability, and frequently suicide (for example
> > the comedian
> > > Tony Hancock).
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 15:11:41 EDT