To contemplate genius is to call forth history's month fascinating people.Take Leonardo da Vinci, whose artworks— The Last Supper, the Mona Lisa—shine like beacons across the centuries. His scientific writings secured his position as the quintessential Renaissance man. Other polymaths also stand out as exemplars of genius: René Descartes, Benjamin Franklin, Mikhail Lomonosov.

The patterns hidden in the names we summon are telling. The people we choose to venerate expose both the defining cognitive features and the circumstances that kindle exceptional creativity.

This article was originally published with the title That's Genius!.

6 Comments

1. 1. Damir Ibrisimovic 01:12 AM 10/27/12

   Dear editors,
   
   I have read this special issue with interest. However, your contributors may have missed the point about creativity entirely. I believe that there is a very simple recipe for any genius --- past, present or future --- habit breaking exercise. I will exemplify with developments in physics...
   
   Before heliocentric we had Ptolemaic thought merged with Plato’s world of Forms. And it was natural to believe that celestial objects moved around in perfect Forms --- circling around Earth. The obvious discrepancies were addressed by adding epicycles upon epicycles upon...
   
   This was a very old habitual thought and --- as any other old habit --- very hard to break. Nevertheless, Copernicus made (probably) first attempt to break the habit by putting Sun in the centre. Unfortunately, he did not manage to break the habitual thought about circle --- so, his model could not match observations. We needed Kepler here to break this habit...
   
   You have observed well that high IQ does not mark a genius. All IQ tests actually measure only how well one navigates within already established habitual thoughts. You have also observed well that wide spectrum of interests is essential for breakthrough thinking. Unfortunately, the current state of scientific disciplines narrows minds of many --- making individual attempts in interdisciplinary approach practically impossible. Also unfortunately, this also enables wild phantasies about issues researched in other disciplines --- to be sold to unsuspecting public as “deep” contemplations. This can also be exemplified by habitual thinking in contemporary physics...
   
   The abstract notion of observer is not the only one that contradicts to physicists’ habitual thought about universe without us within it. The latest anthropomorphic view about universe without us --- takes our (human) perception of information and then removes us from the picture!...
   
   The confusion about information has a long history --- but physicists did not even try to clarify the mess. They simply took over the misconception --- and now are trying to sell the picture of universe of information --- without us in it of course. I will digress here:
   
   Shannon researched information entropy --- and how to guard against it with redundancy. And then we have Wiener who changed the signs in Shannon’s equations and proclaimed that information entropy is actually information. (You are welcome to check the math of both.)
   
   To be continued,
   Damir Ibrisimovic

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Damir Ibrisimovic in reply to Damir Ibrisimovic 01:14 AM 10/27/12

   The absurdity is obvious when we consider than the same message can be informative a little to some and a lot to others. What is informative and how much --- can only be assessed in relation to recipient’s knowledge...
   
   The physicists’ habitual 17th thought about our universe as clock, devised and put in motion by God --- is still maintained (without God of course). Determinism, for example, is still maintained despite the evidence to the contrary. While talking about n-body (or many-body) problem nobody seems to be disturbed by absurdly ridiculous contradiction in terms: deterministic chaos...
   
   Unfortunately, the habit breaking exercises are not carried out in our schools. It seems that we are much happier to tire our kids with our own habitual thoughts. And it could be as simple as changing the hand that wears the timepiece. This increases sensitivity to details --- and in observational sense --- to anomalies that do not conform to our habitual thoughts...
   
   Noting absurdities is good start. It enables the first phase in learning --- unlearning. The process of questioning our old habitual thoughts can take years --- but the end result could be very rewarding...
   
   Have a nice day,
   Damir Ibrisimovic
   http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Damir Ibrisimovic 02:07 AM 10/28/12

   Please, correct the first sentence in the second paragraph to include missing word:
   "The physicists’ habitual 17th (century) thought about our universe as clock..."
   
   Also note that even our perception is based upon habitual perceptual actions...
   
   Have a nice day,
   Damir Ibrisimovic

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. peterchen in reply to Damir Ibrisimovic 03:27 AM 11/30/12

   I agree with you.Genius has little connection with IQ.And in fact,i doubt IQ quiz can actually measure human intelligence.Albert Einsein,Nicola Tesla...they have never taken any IQ quiz.Maybe we still haven't figure out what a genius means to us.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Damir Ibrisimovic in reply to peterchen 05:43 PM 11/30/12

   Dear peterchen,
   
   We actually do have an idea of what thinking like a genius means. We also have a pretty good idea why a work of a genius has very hard time to be accepted...
   
   In simple terms, majority of academics accepts a narrative and repeats it blind to evidence to the contrary. For example, news is full of bad news about global warming. Climatologists enjoy the spotlight, but when it comes to solutions they fall silent. At the same time, we have two Russian climatologists proposing a different climate model that might help us to avert global warming:
   
   http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump2.php
   
   Now, one would expect (Western) climatologists to throw all of their efforts to test the theory. Instead, they simply refuse to even talk about it. The Scientific American’s editors simply follow their lead --- and keep silent...
   
   I have also tried to add a piece to the puzzle. (Please note that my greening method now only has a copyright value. ---
   
   http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20083004-17248.html
   
   Reactions were good, but were never translated into a narrative --- and the narrative is what drives Scientific American, for example.
   
   Things are much worse when a work crosses too many boundaries between disciplines. I have tried to peer-review this article:
   
   http://books.google.com.au/books/about/An_Overview_of_the_Active_Perception_The.html?id=rRIOkbQwzZoC&redir_esc=y
   
   Editors of few journals simply refused to review it because they lacked expertise in psychology or nonmonotonic logic, for example...
   
   The simple fact is that academics only know of few narratives in other disciplines. And even these are uncritically adopted and repeated without questioning. And the article is right about one thing: A genius thinks across disciplines...
   
   Now, American Scientist’s editors could help here very much. All they need is to start collecting contradictory narratives from different disciplines --- and put them next to each other. A public debate could start the process. But --- that needs a bit of courage. Does Scientific American have it?
   
   Have a nice day,
   Damir Ibrisimovic
   http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Damir Ibrisimovic 09:39 PM 12/5/12

   Dear editors,
   
   While we theorise (sometimes correctly) about how mind of a genius might work --- we are lacking a theory why a work of a genius is so hard to be accepted by the academic community. Obviously, there is something wrong here! While we unashamedly publish nonsense like “Universe of Information” and similar pseudoscientific musings --- we simply luck the courage to publish ground-breaking works. As if we are afraid of vitriolic reactions of those who are unable to think on their own...
   
   As things are now, we need to wait a decade or two (generational change) --- until we muster courage to publish really “new ideas”. Can we ever hope for faster developments in academia?
   
   Please, try to address this issue in near future.
   
   Have a nice day,
   Damir Ibrisimovic
   http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this