Genius Requires Just the Right Mix

An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience has an interesting piece taking a look at how genius is rarely developed in a vacuum. From the article: 'The reality is that behind many scientific geniuses, there is at least one other genius, and often a number of them.' It takes much more than a genius pal or predecessor, however, to do great science, according to Simmons. Scientific advances emerge from social, economic and political conditions."

Comments

Re:Surrounding yourself with talent

[Anonymous Coward]

So now I have an excuse. I am not motivated because I am surronded by idiots!

Stupidity, too!

[strobexii]

Browse /. at -1 and notice how stupidity doesn't develop in a vacuum either. Behind every "-1 Offtopic" comment, there are dozens of other equally irrelevant, nonsensical rants. One "Stephen King is Dead" post always leads to more, and penis bird lives on.

Re:Surrounding yourself with talent

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a quote that you might like: It's hard to fly like an eagle when you're surrounded by a bunch of turkeys.

I first heard it about 20-odd years ago, and it always seems appropriate :)

Right

[2Bits]

According to that hypothesis, I'm wondering how many geniuses /. has produced, since everyone here considers himself/herself a genius? Most important of all, when am I going to become a genius too, since I've been surrounding myself with all these geniuses here for quite a while now?

Can someone prove to me that this hypothesis is true:

1. Surround yourself with one /. genius makes you a genius. True.
2. Surround yourself with two /. geniuses makes you a genius. True.
3. Surround yourself with n /. geniuses makes you a genius. True.
4. Hence, surround yourself with n + 1 /. geniuses also makes you a genius.

The question is, how many /. geniuses does it take to prove this?

Re:Right

[gbobeck]

The question is, how many /. geniuses does it take to prove this?

About the same number of /.'ers that it takes to change a light bulb.

Wouldn't it be possible to prove this using mathematical induction.

A(n) = Surround yourself with n /. genius makes you a genius, n = 1

If it is known that A(n) is true, and also that A(n) implies A(n+1), then A(n+1) is true, and this implies A(n+2) is true, etc., thus proving that A(k) is true for all k>=n.

I haven't even begun!

[sarge apone]

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

Re:I haven't even begun!

[Ethan Allison]

Inconcievable!

Re:Hmm..

[Firehed]

Not once the government-sponsored inbreeding program starts :) An idea that good couldn't possibly backfire!

Re:Surrounding yourself with talent

[Rick and Roll]

I prefer "It's hard to fly like an eagle when you're surrounded by a bunch of fucktards."

Re:Surrounding yourself with talent

[Anonymous Coward]

Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Dilbert

[Ctrl Alt De1337]

PHB: A good manager is someone who hires people who are smarter than he is.

Wally: So... your boss is dumber than you?

Alice: And you boss's boss is dumber yet?

Dilbert: According to your theory, our CEO is the dumbest person in the company.

Wally: Unless all of you are bad managers.

Asok: Truly we are doomed either way.

PHB: This concludes the motivational part of the meeting.

Wally: I'd give you a high five but I don't like to move.

Re:Tell it to Mr Oreck

[ozmanjusri]

"genius is rarely developed in a vacuum"

Well, duh. Poor bugger'd be suffocated before he had time to say "Interesting colour my aaaaarghhhh"

Right mix?

[hey!]

as in the ratio of LSD to amphetamines?