Finally, you will say, at Last! Your going to define genius for us. We need this because all considerations of all aspects of genius and our course must be based on upon a definition of the word. What genius is, is how we or anyone defines it. Fair enough. But to demonstrate, once again, the elusive nature of genius, let me share with you several definitions of the term. Here is poet John Milton's definition that we met before. "Genius, a natural ability or capacity, quality of mind, the special endowments which fit a man for his peculiar work." Here, genius is a thing, a capacity, but not a person. Now another definition, this one from the 18th century, that of John Addison, published in his newspaper, The Spectator in 1711. Ben Franklin read the Spectator and so did Isaac Newton. Here's Addison's definition: "Native intellectual power of an exalted type, such as attributed to those who are esteemed greatest in any department of art, speculation or practice, often contrasted with talent." What is the difference between talent and genius? Here's how nineteenth-century German Romantic philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, in his treatise, The World as Will and Idea very cleverly distinguished the two. Quote, "A person of talent hits a target, no one else can hit. Person of genius hits a target no one else can see." End quote. "Hits a target that no one else can see." Which geniuses might have done that? Well, maybe the drafters of the US Constitution might have been such far-seeing geniuses, given the novelty and then lasting importance of that document around the world. Scientists: Tim Berners-Lee, who foresaw the existence of the World Wide Web and the protocol www, is surely a far-seeing genius. Steve Jobs eventually foresaw the smartphone or the iPhone. Jobs once said, quote, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them," end quote. But Nikola Tesla outdid Jobs. Tesla was a genius who saw the advent of the smartphone nearly 100 years before Jobs, writing in 1919 in his autobiography, that such a device would be no bigger than a pocket watch, which you'd be able to hold in the palm of your hand. Tesla also predicted the radio, robots, and solar heating. Visionary impact must surely, as Schopenhauer said, be implicit in any definition of genius. Now, a more recent definition of genius from the commonly available Miriam Webster dictionary. In fact, three definitions. Definition A: Genius is a strongly marked capacity or aptitude, B extraordinary intellectual power, especially as manifest in creative activity. Definition C, a person endowed with extraordinary mental superiority, especially a person with a very high IQ, in quote. Is that true? Is a person with a very high IQ a genius? Is that all that it takes? Is that all that's involved? I'll suggest otherwise in Week 2 Session 2, when we get to the drivers of genius,
79
00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:51,610
what causes or empowers it. We've met six rather different definitions of genius--from the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 21st centuries. Of course, each of us should have our own definition of genius and you are encouraged to formulate your own. But let me give you mine for today. Here it is. A genius is a person of extraordinary mental powers whose original works or insights note the plural here. whose works or insights change society in some significant way for good or for ill across cultures and across time. Let's parse out this definition word by word. A genius is a person, male, female, or transgender, of extraordinary mental powers. Lifting weights at the Olympics or winning the World title of world's greatest Sumo wrestler. Well, that may not be an act of mental or intellectual genius. Original works or insights. Works allows for the arts, and insights, allows for the sciences. Note the plural here. Presumably the genius is more than a one trick pony capable of more than just a one-off work or insight. Swiss inventor, Georges de Mestral, invented Velcro, but I can't name anything else. 3M Company employee Art Fry invented the post-it note, but I can't think of anything else. Jet Propulsion Lab scientist Lonnie Johnson well, he invented the Super Soaker squirt gun. I actually own one from my grand-kids, but I can't think of anything else. Shakespeare wrote 37 plays, Picasso created more than 20,000 works of art, Edison filed 1093 patents. The genius seems to hit the target that no one else can see, and not just once, but many times. To continue: works or insights that change society, for me, that's the key: change society is the key, and it causes us to consider several points. What is the difference between novelty and impact? between novelty and creativity? I could think of a new, original way of walking from say, Grand Central Station in New York City to Times Square. A lot of people do that every day. I could think of a root that no one ever thought up, but it wouldn't be very efficient. It would be a very roundabout way and it would be one that no one else would adopt, it would have no impact. Something is creative not only because it is original, but because it is impactful or useful. It forces society to change. Another exampe: Perhaps I'm a fashion designer and I fashion dresses such as these. Novel, yes, but as far as I can tell, no one else has bought such dresses, at least. I haven't seen any of them around the streets of New York or anywhere else. For something to be creative, it must, again, impact the lives of others, cause their lives to change. Thus, how many people must be involved in a creative act. I would suggest at least two. First, the creator, the genius, and second, a receiver, a person or a society who decides to change. It takes two to tango, as they say, and it takes two to effect an act of creativity. Humor me for a moment as we've begin something akin to a philosophical debate. Suppose Alfred Einstein, an archetype of genius, were stranded on a desert island, and as he sat there, he thought up all those wonderful theories about Brownian motion, about the Photoelectric Effect, special and general relativity E=MCsquared. He conceived all of these things, and then he kept them to himself, entirely to himself because he didn't want to communicate or because he had no means of communication such as the Internet, between him and other people. Would uncommunicative Einstein, on a desert island still be a genius? Well, depends on your definition of genius. According to mine, he would not be, but perhaps according to yours, he would be. If he simply had the capacity to think up all those wonderful things. Maybe according to your definition, you see Einstein instead as a genius "in potentia" (Latin) someone who has the potential for being a genius. or the potential to change others. Genius is imminent, stays within the individual versus genius being impactful on the outside world. Supposing Einstein thought up all those wonderful things, communicated them to others but then, we, the people rightly or wrongly, simply refuse to engage, couldn't be bothered, refused to change. Is Einstein still an Einstein, a genius, or is he merely a prophet crying in the wilderness? Everyone could argue these points in different ways, and I hope you are, and I hope you do. Again the point of this is not to try to hand out a nugget of wisdom, but rather to ask you to join with me in a hypothetical thought experiment, thought experiments such as these; and surely Einstein himself would have liked that. To continue with our definition. A genius changes society in some significant way. Here we go again, more debate. How significant, how significant, significant for whom, who determines significance? Again, it's a point of personal interpretation. People value different things. Perhaps the most significant thing to be found on earth is human kindness. Perhaps kindness should be a factor in defining genius. Presumably, we all value human life. Penicillin, I read, has been estimated to have saved 200 million lives since its discovery in 1929. By contrast, Kanye West's Yeezy tennis shoe may give pleasure, but as far as I know, it has saved no lives. With each new model, about 250,000 tennis shoes are sold, but not 200 million. Thus, as to significance of impact, my vote here goes to penicillin and antibiotics generally. To continue: for good or for ill, that brings us to the question of the evil genius. Does the evil genius exist? Can you be evil and still be a genius? If so precisely how evil do you have to be to be classified as an evil genius. Society's responsibility regarding what to do with individuals who destroy things and behave inhumanely is clear. What is society's responsibility regarding those who create very good things but also behave in an inhumane way? Do we tolerate them or do we cancel them? That will be the topic for our discussion in Week 4. Lastly, in our definition across cultures and across time. Penicillin has been distributed around the world for 80 years. Yeezy tennis shoes are not sold around the world because they are expensive, a 100 dollars plus US money. That's beyond the means of the average person on this planet. Kanye West produces a new model of Yeezy tennis shoes every year or so because tennis shoes wear out and fashions change, so the impact of the Yeezy tennis shoe is transient. It's fleeting, doesn't last very long. All of which brings up a provocative question. Who is the greater genius? Which would you rather be: someone who influences a billion people during one year or someone who influences a million people for a thousand years? The number ultimately is the same, but the durations differ. It's your decision. But if you choose the latter option, presumably you won't be around here to take a bow. Well, these are just the heuristic, thought provoking, yet I think fun questions involving meaning and values that Yale students in the genius course are asked to engage in their written papers. But what is not fun, because it's difficult to remember, is my long wordy definition. "A genius is a person of extraordinary mental powers whose original creative works or insights change society in some significant way for good or for ill across cultures and across time. Who the heck is going to remember that? Here's how Albert Einstein defined genius, "A genius is someone who takes a very complex idea and turns it into a simple one." Actually, Einstein may not have said that, it's only attributed to him, but authentic or not, this is a good model to follow. Allow me to reduce my overly long definition to a simple formula. If genius Einstein gave us E=MCsquared, non-genius Craig proposes the following formula: It's not so much a definition of genius, rather a way of measuring it. G = S x N x D Genius equals significance times the number of people impacted, times the duration of the impact. If we quantify S and N and D, we might even come up with a genius point score and from that, a genius ranking. Comparison lies at the very heart of the notion of genius. But is this helpful? Do we really want to rank, say, the genius of Rembrandt against that of Picasso, or Bach against Beethoven or Newton against Einstein. Likely we would all agree, that's pointless, indeed, maybe silly, because each of us would have to assign points, mostly according to our personal values and sensibilities and life experiences. Having your own values and sensibilities as important, just as is having your own definition of genius. You don't have to agree with my definition, but at least now we have a definition, a platform upon which we can stand and agree or disagree as we go forward.
