Slashdot Mirror
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."
He's still alive, you insensitive ass.
Really brilliant people (not just scientifically, but in any discipline or industry) surround themselves with other brilliant people. They enjoy being challenged by peers. They are secure in their abilities and know that other brilliant people will not threaten their place but help to elevate it.
I am finding, early in my business career, that working with other talented people makes me work harder and aspire to greater things. The constant challenges put a perspective on the obstacles I used to face - ones I now overcome easily.
I'm beginning to believe that "genius" is just a frame of mind.
What a foul little waste of blurb space that was.
Science doesn't have a monopoly on genius. There is plenty of genius elsewhere.
As for the conditions necessary for "genius" things to happen in science, that's called a "paradigm shift". Read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution".
All this article told me was someone was trying to cover some white space.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
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.
Human cognition has been described by some researchers as unique in that it is the result of many years of cumulated cultural evolution. We think in symbols that have developed over time. In that sense, all of us can be said to "stand on the shoulders of giants."
Certain environments (cultural, social, intellectual, environments) are ripe for a certain key innovation. It is up to individual researchers to make that development, but of course it wouldn't be possible without the work of others before them. This is even more evident when we look at scenarios in which several researchers develop the same innovation at almost precisely the same time.
Of course, drawing the conclusion that "geniuses are just like the rest of us" is totally of base. Some individuals are most assuredly better than others at innovating and developing our knowledge. In fact, I would submit that the majority of humans take the role of "imitator" not innovator. Innovators have to be rare, and imitators prevalent, in order for cumulative cultural evolution to work; lots of people need to preserve our knowledge -you can't have everyone thinking differently and innovating.
Further to this, I would like to add that the sort of genius that makes an "Einstein" is not necessarily just "being smart", whatever that means, but thinking differently than the rest of us -just being weird. A low amount of weird individuals in a social group will allow that group to explore new possibilities safely.
You take a dash of dad, a pinch of mom, then we bake for nine months and mmm, that's good Billy!
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
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?
/. genius makes you a genius. True. /. geniuses makes you a genius. True. /. geniuses makes you a genius. True. /. geniuses also makes you a genius.
/. geniuses does it take to prove this?
Can someone prove to me that this hypothesis is true:
1. Surround yourself with one
2. Surround yourself with two
3. Surround yourself with n
4. Hence, surround yourself with n + 1
The question is, how many
There's a very long string of famous mathematicians that associated with each other (not necessarily directly, but they are all connected on a relatively small graph), beginning with Leibniz and ending with Dirichlet. It includes Bernoulli, Euler, Lagrange, Fourier, and Poisson, as well as the aforementioned two.
So yes, I'd be inclined to agree.
The summary is fairly misleading. (gasp!) All the article says is that geniuses who accomplish great things tend to work closely with other geniuses. The summary implies that you are only a genius if you accomplish great things. There are probably a fair number of geniuses in the world that spend too much time on the small stuff to do great things.
So if it takes more than one genius to produce another genius, does that mean we could be looking at a genius shortage in the future?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
From the article:
"The scientific genius who grew up in grinding poverty is an exceedingly rare bird," he said. "If it seems there was a great flowering of scientific genius out of Eastern Europe beginning in the late nineteenth century, it was due in large part to a developing middle class, a stable family life, and secular opportunities for both men and women."
So, less povery will produce more geniuses. I think that's a really good argument for creating a stronger social safety net.
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.
Best Free Utilities for Windows
How is that flamebait? I have to disagree, however, in that these highly talented individuals are helped by equally or slightly less talented individuals. Edison didn't invent the lightbulb all by himself, nor do most innovators work alone.
Documentation: Instructions translated from Swedish by Japanese for English speaking persons.
Well, if you perform an aggregate analysis of all the slashdot subscribers, I think you might find one or two savants.
:)
Certainly more than one idiot.
Myself included.
Exactly. Kuhn's ideas about how scientists who are creating paradigm shifts are reacting to breakdowns in the normal order of things are decades old but much more insightful. Here is a thumbnail sketch of one such idea.
Kuhn saw scientists in a given specialization as members of a particular linguistic community. Genius revisionings of whole specializations or even whole sciences happen when the normal language of that science, like dynamics or chemistry, starts to prove inadequate to the task of describing what the scientist sees. Strange anomalies begin to appear that have no place in the old language.
A new language is proposed by a young scientist or someone new to the field, and a debate over the old vision and the new vision begins. It is beset by communication problems ranging from the ambiguity of words used differently in the two contexts, to the structure of reality itself in the two languages. The old vision and the new vision don't translate. But the genius is so convincing, or so elegant, or provides such surprising and shocking evidence, that the new language wins out eventually. Or, alternatively, the old language is sufficient and the new one fails to provide the evidence it should.
Incidentally, this provides a very interesting context in which to view the evolution vs. intelligent design cultural debate. Intelligent design isn't really giving scientists a new framework to work within, no new language from which to view the world, a language that resolves outstanding problems with evolution and yet is fertile enough to lead to new problems suitable for science.
But it also provides an interesting way to think about what post-evolution biological science might look like. From my layman's (CS scientist's) viewpoint, one big change might involve the causes of life and death. They are a little fuzzy for edge cases, like the origin of the proto-cellular organism, or the status of a dormant virus, or the possibility of extending human life beyond the hundred-year range. Some new language exploding these fuzzy terms, life and death, might arise that puts evolution in a larger context, if such a thing is possible.
Great science is made out of just such analogical visions, a great idea applied out of place. The linked article mentioned Darwin's geology book; Darwin applied concepts about rocks changing over time to biology and the rest is history.
In any case, the approbation of a group of scientists is key to extending the life of a scientific paradigm; these are the professional problem solvers who recognize the salience of the problems the new paradigm solves and the power of the language the new paradigm provides. They also work within the boundaries of the paradigms, hunting vigorously for anomalies, guided by a sense that they are making generalizations concrete, and yet at any moment ready to make an observation to turn the universe on its head.
One scientist alone is like a voice in the wilderness, speaking a private language. But geniuses are nurtured in good company, by a challenging community. Richard Hamming said as much in a great talk about doing great scientific work. If you want to read about genius, read that.
"The essence of science is cumulative. By changing a problem slightly you can often do great work rather than merely good work. Instead of attacking isolated problems, I made the resolution that I would never again solve an isolated problem except as characteristic of a class."
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
No, I enjoy squashing them. As if a genius can have a "peer". True genius has no equal, and quite simply cannot have peers. In other words, true geniuses don't need to be around other people to convince themselves that they are "smart": they KNOW that they are smart.
Not sure what qualifies you as a genious. Anyways your approach of "squashing" will not get you far in the real world. Most geniouses will acknowlege they were not the first, nor the last. Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"?
You should have cut that sentence right after "himself".
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Not everybody who does well on an IQ test is a genius, but everybody who does not do well on an IQ test is not a genius.
...but is it art?
Argh... I mean right after "lightbulb".
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
no correlation, hum? does that mean it has a p-value of +.05? does good grammar--"IQ and SAT has..." "correlate" with intelligence? is the data set parametric? what measurements are we using? note the repeated usage of "no correlation" without any data whatsoever. which school of thought? where is this school of thought that thinks IQ and SAT are the end all and be all of genius? where is this strawperson? yes, we might be moving beyond a single "q" factor for intelligence, but don't you think we should look at the evidence first, rather than asserting the recieved wisdom, which in this of all cases should be questioned?
The sociologist Howard Becker has written extensively, most clearly in his book "Art Worlds," that to understand creation the locus should be the entire world of the artist, not the artist. We're making a mistake if we try to understand Beethoven's 9th without reference to the culture of Vienna, the rising role of the publishing house, the people who let him live the unfettered (if tortured) life of a creative artist, all play a role alongside the musicians, the promoters, his students, and composers who preceeded him and worked alongside him. That Viennese world, with Beethoven in it, Becker would argue, is the actual producer of the work.
The same holds true for science and other creative endeavors. It's not an airtight thesis, by any means, but it is provocative and gets people thinking along different lines than the unitary individual acting alone as we are so prone to do in the West...
Namely, "Genius loves company".
I've never taken the SAT, so there is no way I can be a genius. Don't remember the IQ score either, if that's any indication.
My momma gave birth to a winner, I gotta win.
I don't agree with the assertions of the author. I know it is in vogue to believe it's a special relationship between events, people, etc., that makes a genius, but I don't agree. You are or you aren't. Whether the genius' contributions are recognized, whether the genius finds an appropriate subject in which to expend his creative energy, these are the questions.
The article goes on to discuss how Einstein had all the benefits of other great physicists. But wait, he dropped out of high school, barely made it into college, and couldn't even find a job. He taught himself calculus, and developed special relativity on his own.
History is rife with examples of genius forgotten, and who knows how much is lost. The Fourier Transform was rejected by the Academy of Sciences of Paris, yet look at the applications today, from digital image processing, communications theory, and the profound impact it had on the revolutionary idea of function. Consider others, such as Fermat, a great mathematician, for whom math was only a hobby. This extends to other things like music. Bach, little known in his own time, and completely forgotten until he was discovered by Mendelssohn, is now considered by many to be the greatest composer of all time.
No, I think that people who like to say there is no Genius, only environment, are merely mediocre thinkers, socialists, and those who would rob the wonderful talent of the great contributers of our world. The goal? To diminish individual contribution and aggrandize socialism.
The real question we ought to be asking, is given there are as many people alive today as ever, why don't we have 10000 geniuses making enormous progress in the sciences, when largely we hear about questionable things like "cold fusion," and the like.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Genius is a BS concept. IQ is crap. Results are what count. Do you make things better or worse? Are you an asset or a liability? Only fools strut around hoping to have their genius recognized.
"Regardless, the intrigue of a conversation spreads on the merits of the conversation ... and not necessarily on the qualities of the people engaged in the conversation."
I'd have to disagree. Consider two geniuses, whose letters to each other as they reconciled are considered one of the greatest political correspondences of modern times: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Of course, they knew they were writing for posterity, but still... Do you think that their dialogue would have been even remotely interesting to their successors on the political stage in the US, or to historians, had not they been revered 'fathers' of the Constitution and of the US?
Or the famous letters between Newton and Leibnitz? Their personalities drove the interest in their letters as much as the items discussed did, particularly when those letters became less of theory and more of vitriol.
Personality drives the intrigue of conversation as much as content.
"What happens is that, on occasion, a compelling conversative takes place that really draws in the imagination of the academic crowd."
I agree there. But WHY are those conversations compelling? I believe it is because of the asking of, and attempts to answer, the questions that no one has thought to answer. And it's genius that is able to do so, and it does it best when geniuses can ask of eachother, and build of eachother's questions.
Scientific genius is not knowing the answers... scientific genius is asking the questions no one else has seriously asked.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It's because America has top-notch gyms and training equipment, allowing more people with natural talent to be able to develop their talents to the extreme.
Cntrl-C, Cntrl-V this idea into an intellectual bucket, and you get the point of the article. Environment is critical to "geniusness".
An IQ of 140 is not 'genius' but, instead, it's 'gifted'. My IQ is about this, too, and what I've learned over the years is that I'm just smart enough to fool people into thinking I'm smart, when I'm really just 'average plus'. The downside is that everyone thought I was really smart growing up, and they managed to get me fooled, too, until I burned out.
I was always surrounded by people more successful than me, and it took a long time to sink in that I lacked every quality to achieve success, in spite of being 'gifted'. I'm not very social, for starters, and I also have trouble speaking clearly. Add several other things worthy of psychoanalysis (emotionally absent father, somewhat unstable mother, etc.), and I guess the "right mix" didn't materialize.
I'm much happier now that I've stopped trying to amount to a fantasy. My next job will be quite average, and combined with my wife's salary, our finances will be just fine. As far as I'm concerned, "genius" is just a fabrication of naive and optimistic teachers and parents.
the first being a book of ayn rand's letters and (maybe?) diary entries. the second being a gigantic book of anne sexton's letters.
:(
since moving to DC to work for the DOD, i have to admit, i feel stupider than ever. not because i don't attempt to better myself, but because the general crowd mentality is to not rock the boat. a few months ago, i told my contract manager how i loved my job (fixing problems) but hated to work in an environment where for the most part, the people were far more ignorant or stupid than me.
nothing kills the quest for knowledge more than having people who only care about their vacation and step increase around you for 2 years.
I've probably spent about 15 years since 1980 on the Dole.
I reckon I'd be set if I could get a job doing the one thing I know I'm really really good at - doing IQ tests, and other kinds of "mental parlor tricks".
[troll mode on]BTW, Kuhn was full of shit. Great way to get someone to notice you, to write a series of papers that barely make any sense, yet flatter those who make the decisions as to whether you are "good" or not. He'd of made an excellent Real Estate, Used Car or Insurance salesman in my opinion. His re-definition of epistemology ultimately delivered nothing of benefit except to a few academics who could sit around deconstructing the creative and inventive processes, thus insuring security of tenure. [troll mode off]
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.
Sure, there could be several savants. There might even be a real genius hiding out here somewhere. But most of us are no where near true genius status, even if we'd like to be. There are plenty of smarts on slashdot, I've not seen real genius and I've been looking here for a *long* time.
- doug
And the Savantissimo!
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Doh, never mind. The Sensitive Clod is who wrote Linux. As a whole. By themself. I thought it was Tux.
A B A C A B B
Actually I have monitored the three- to five- sigma IQ societies for some time, and their conversations are usually less intelligent than the norm here in Slashdot. (Sad, I know.) Maybe your standards of genius are just unrealistic?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Irrelevant concepts can still exist. Merely because (if what you assert is true) there is no relevance to whether a person fulfills a set of criteria which determine "genius" is no reason to suggest that no person can be a genius.
...but is it art?
IMHO, genius is very closly related to serendipity. Also, the ability to realize the discovery and act on it.
One of biggest problems a "genius thinker" often faces is his own intelligence. He is on a much higher level and being surrounded by "normal people" often leaves him unchallenged, he doesn't have to work at anything, and then his discontent could squash the ideas right out of him. But as soon as you put him in a room with another on his level, he will quickly find himself challenged, and will respond with genius, as will his counterpart, leading to truly amazing things. As a general rule, I've found that people don't excel unless they have a reason to. 99% of the time, its competition
Form L/M presumably, scored on the Pinneau table at a young age. I'm curious - how old were you when you took the SB?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
"genius is rarely developed in a vacuum"
Well, duh. Poor bugger'd be suffocated before he had time to say "Interesting colour my aaaaarghhhh"
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Hendrix came along at the right time in the curve (also, speaking as a long time professional guitar player, he had the ... uh ... genius to back it up (and really big hands)).
/.) but across musical history you see 'genius' arriving when the technology and or culture move (I'm resisting the phrase 'paradigm shift' for semantic reasons). The first ones to speak the knew language get to invent it, and the rest sit around analyzing Bach / Beethoven / Beatles / Bird et al.
The technology of the solid body electric guitar interfacing with the tube amplifier had reached a level where you (he) could lean on the vibrato arm and stay in tune (3rd Stone), the tubes were together enough to control feedback for long periods of time without the amplifier blowing out, PA systems had recently reached a point where you could play that loud and sing on top of the amps. Add to this a technological arms race going on with tape bandwidth and multitrack fueled by an enormous amount of money flowing into the music business. Read the studio logs, he gets his hands on the latest gear as it arrives. For the rest of the century devices are created that allow any kid in a garage to appx the amp sounds, tuners to take the first two years off of waiting to play out.
A better right place right time example from 60s pop music is Dylan (because he doesn't require the sheer mysterious hand-tone and control that Hendrix does). He arrives right as old school protest folk and Ginsberg are colliding, gets a head of steam and invents a language - having invented it his accent is usually more perfect than most. He's also granted unlimited carte blanc by the 'Zeigeist' to go where ever his beat poetry leads him, including rock and roll.
I can't speak for the science guys as I'm not qualified (though that statement doesn't make much sense on
Your statement about
> quiet, reserved, socially inept, introverts.
Is probably only partially true. Hendrix was definitely wierd by the standards of his time, but he wasn't socially inept.
> im fucking 16, and public school
Keep your head up. Highschool sucks. Learn shit. Join a band (or whatever you kids are calling it) and hit on chicks. It gets better at 18 (or so they say)
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
mentioned that focusing on the individual is a western thing. it is an intersting aside that in eastern cultures, a person accomplishes not solely for themselves, but often for the benefit of the scoial group (whatever that may be) this type of thinking is indoctrinated in several asian cultures (or any culture where the extended family is the basic social unit). Therefore, the individual who excels is acknowleged, but as a part of the larger unit that produced them.
This article demonstrates that the west (companies like Google leading the way) are only just catching on to the idea that breakthroughs are more complicated than an individual "A HA!" moment.
*prepares grammar shield of +5 flame protection*
However, surrounding one's self with excellence at work is only part of the equation, surrounding one's self with a nurturing and supportive family environment (good nutrition and well-balanced life experiences) at an early age further assists your development. Then there are the other relevant social, cultural, and other environmental factors that would go along with this.
Like wild sex with a naked bitchin' ho.
Just for balance.
You just decribed two individuals, then decided that one of them was a genius because he was more like edison. Edison was not a genius, he had good business skills, he happend on the right _filament_ for a light bulb, and he tried to power the united states with DC power because he was too unscrupulus to pay Tesla for his work. It that's genius, surely Ken Lay has edison beat through and through.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
While the article may very well be true, I've heard another saying that strikes me as even more true, "There is a fine line bettwen a Genius and an Idiot." Many people we hold in high esteeme for their brillance were also a little eccentric, or down right crazy. Vincent Van Gogh, Bobby Fisher, Andy Warhol, hell Wikipedia has a whole list of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_widely _considered_eccentric.
In my personal experience, most of the smartest people I have meet have been a little bit, well crazy. Now figuring out what that tiny factor that truly does seperate the loonies, from the genius loonies, that is the hard part.
Ramanujan is one of the biggest mathematical geniuses ever, and taught himself these things in a vacuum.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/spo_sum_oly_me d_all_tim_percap
Olympic medals per capita, all time:
#1 Finland
#2 Sweden
#3 Hungary
#4 Denmark
#5 Norway
.
.
.
the US comes in at place 28 of 116. And as for gold medals, well, there are no total statistics on the site, but for Sydney, gold medals per capita put the US at place 31 of 48. And so on. It's pretty standard knowledge that the US does very badly in the Olympics for a country of that size. It only does well in the absolute number of medals because of its, well, absolute size, which gives it a massive pool of talented people and a lot will succeed regardless of how inferior their training/financial environment is to rich world standards.
(BTW, part of the reason why Finland is leading the all time per capita stats is that in the early 20th century Finns *were* often written off in Western Europe/America as racially inferior and there was a huge national push to succeed in sports to defeat that image...)
Ultimately it just proves that I am very good at IQ tests, and absolutely nothing more.
The only thing it seems to be really good for is pissing off people who think IQ is important and that they are somehow superior because they have IQ in the 120-140 range.
I'm a kind of freak I guess, I have eidetic memory, I've hardly ever got below 90% in anything that has exams. But I'm totally incapable of doing terribly much that's practical or useful, none of my "ideas" have ever been more than stupid dreams.
I can sometimes "accidently" find really good and clever solutions to problems, but I can only do it consistently in an exam environment. As I result my worth to an employer is pretty low in most jobs - they usually want someone who can be consistently OK, or even good (if they're very lucky!), not (rarely) sporadically brilliant.
I was once told by a Uni lecturer that the perfect job for me was working for someone who was a kind of gambler, who was willing to pay me to sit and do whatever I wanted, and take a long odds bet on me producing an idea that would change the world. I haven't found that job yet though - I suspect they're pretty scarce.
Wow, I could have posted that, and came to some of the same conclusions you did.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Although genetics play a small part by determining your hardware, Genius is nothing more then the software running on that hardware. A Genius brain has better algorithms making use of its individual hardware then a average person.
as in the ratio of LSD to amphetamines?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I only use the O RLY because this is stupid-obvious and not completely true. Sure, in a sense, the title of the article sums it up nicely. But there's a reason your average half-retard doesn't stumble upon great ideas suddenly and without warning. Or your 160IQ professor at a university who goes his whole life without doing anything that changes his field. I consider this assessment an interpretation, or rationilization of genius, to help commoners better understand how people get their ideas and form creative thought patters. But come on. Most the people in this article make the guy that wrote it sound like a toddler hell-bent on gettin a fruit roll-up.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
I am not a genius, but I work with such idiots who make me resemble one. Boss mistakes frequently for man of great Mental Power.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Thought of a good example.
Next time you get into an argument with someone at your house, call the cops, and see how well gov't intervention helps you out. Then think about communist and socialist beurocracies again.
The point of my original post was that it is not genius alone which draws us to certain people. It is usually genius within context of a conversation. We learn of the genius through their interactions with others.
In the case of Adams and Jefferson: There were many people involved in the founding of the United States. Part of the reason that Jefferson and Adams seem to stand so far above the fray is that they were engaged in quality conversations.
Here, personality and intellect help.
Genius alone isn't much. It is not until people are engaged in an issue that they stand out. Even here, we find that it may not be the IQ that makes a conversation stand out, but the personality (as your post seemed to imply).
(i) I'm Australian, so Oz, NZ and Britain I guess.
(ii) Started a PhD, but left to get a job. My degrees are in general science and "applied" maths.
(iii) Other than doing tests and exams? I seem to be able to explain maths and science to people quite well. I can usually see how to find solutions to problems - note that this is not the same as solving the problems (which I can sometimes do - I can often identify the method to use even when I don't have the skills to use or apply that method.). I can often see through the bullshit and identify what the real question is. Note that these 3 attributes are pretty much what it takes to do exams really well.
(iv) Everything interests me to a point. Am I passionate about anything? Sometimes, for a while. One of my friends tells me that I still don't know what I want to do when I grow up. I'd love to know enough to be able to solve practical problems, like feeding the hungry, or improving health in general, without raping the planet or exploiting the poor.
(v) And this point is perhaps where my problem with work really lies - I don't really know! When the tests I talked about above were complete, the OT who was dealing with my case said "we'll send you back to University, as anything we could find for you to do would bore you to tears". Thus they removed me from the ranks of the Unemployed (thus being a "case solved" from his perspective), and I entered the ranks of Uni Student at the age of 30. I quite enjoyed maths at school and uni, but jobs where you do that seem to be scarce - either you need to have more maths than I possess (as some engineers have, or actuaries have), or else "maths jobs" seem to be things like "bank teller" etc as far as I can tell.
(vi) I seem to be able to pick jobs that are (1) run by fools or (2) are run by scammers or (3) just arn't sustainable. Typical of me, I seem to be unable to sucessfully choose a job that has a future. Once again, the difference between "measured intelligence" and the kind of "smarts" that really matter appears to be what really matters here. My jobs have ended because (1) I've realised that my employees are really cunning scammers, who are using the presence of a "really smart person" as a tool to suck investors etc in, (2) The employer realises that being a "super smart person" does not imply "a person who can magically pull profit out of a hat" and as such was really not a good hire in the first place. The rest of my jobs have been for companies that have folded.
It's actually pretty depressing having people say "You could get a good job anywhere, doing anything" when it simply isn't the case. Perhaps there's some truth to the stereotype of the "genius" who is incapable of tying his own shoelaces (although I can tie my shoelaces!).
I'm not sure how those numbers were arrived at. My impression was that the WAIS has a hard ceiling of 160 (4 sigma), and that the upper range of the test (>130) was almost universally considered an underestimate, severely limited by ceiling effects. OTOH, at 14 very little age adjustment needs to be applied to most subtests since the development curve turns the corner at around 11 - 12 and adult performance is reached by age 16 on the overall IQ score. So if you got a perfect raw score, 5 SD is pretty much a guess, 4+ SD is all you can really say.
The test at 24 is more puzzling, since I don't believe the WAIS can give a deviation IQ of over 160, and I'm not sure of the scaling of raw scores on the WAIS. The same question applies to the SB at 26, perhaps this was some sort of raw score, since to my knowledge, the adult SB has always had a 4 SD (max IQ 164 until the recent change to a 15-pt. SD) hard ceiling, while for children taking the form L/M there is an extended approximation table (drawn up by a Mr. Pinneau) which can give higher scores. This is how Marylyn vos Savant got her world record score - she was 8 and got a near-perfect score on the highest levels of the adult SB. On the latest version (out too recently for a CrankyOldBastard to have taken it as a child) of the SB5 there is also an EXIQ table for children, but the latest norming is very tough and the table is rarely needed.
Anyway, you might want to join some of the high IQ clubs out there. The Mega Society (IQ 176 / 1 in 1,000,000 cutoff, which is now once again under the control of the really cranky old bastard, Kevin (the Unspeakable) Langdon (aka Melvin in certain satires)) still accepts the very tough Titan test, which you might find fun. Prometheus Society's (4 SD) mail list is also fairly under the spell of KL and his coterie, and don't even think about the Triple Nine Society unless you really like bickering and reactionary politics. (There are some good people there, too, of course - it is the biggest of the ultra high-IQ societies.) Ultranet (4 SD) is relatively good, with some real geniuses among the regular list contributors. It's sponsored by KL's longtime foes Gina LoSasso and Chris Langan. (Langan's TOE, the CTMU is very rarely mentioned, so don't let it scare you off.)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Genius is Relative, pun intended. Pythagoras was considered a genius, but what he discovered is considered junior high school level science today. The same holds true for Archimedes. People seem to be a genius be only compared to those around them. The one thing that most people will never understand is that people who are labeled "genius" are rarely trying to be one nor care if they are. The discover things because they are curious, because they are compelled. They never ask, "What can I do with this?" What can I blow up or how do I sell this?" It is always the simple minded less creative people that find a way to make a fortune off a real genius's ideas. If you are wondering if you are a genius, stop and just get on with the task of discovery!
It's always been difficult for us to measure "genius". Since we're in an age where we can't believe what we can't measure, we pretend that various intelligence-testing systems are completely accurate. Statistics and experimental results are also seen as infallible. Genius - extroardinary mental brilliance - occurs in all segments of a population. That includes genius social butterflies and genius friendless loners. Great ideas don't need to come from some hive-mind of geniuses, but the more people who contribute to a project, the more people who have a direct stake in getting it published or implemented. Their social resources help publicize whatever it is they've discovered or invented. The genius who goes home alone and draws flying-machines on napkins, or discusses the nature of reality with their cat, will probably never be recognized.
Your own link states the weighted average as 5.6 per 1 million people and the US results as 7.15508 per 1 million people.
This supports the OP's statement as literally true. Your follow up comments also support the OP's conclusion. That environmental competition plays a role even when the objective of that competition is different; financial gain vs nation pride.
The following link from the same site might add more light than heat to the overall discussion.
http://www.nationmaster.com/correlations/spo_sum_
Smartest guys in the room and all that.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods
When we ask if genius can come out of a metaphorical vacuum, this begs the question, did life come out of a vacuum? We evolved from single cells, and so genius is a relative thing when placed in the context of the gradual progression of Homo evolution. Yet there has always been a bell curve-type distribution of various capacities, not only intellectual, at any given point in evolutionary history, that contributed to survival. If you always need a genius to make another genius, where did the first one come from? We, our line of cells, have developed organs with the capacity to think, to reason and this has happened without anyone's individual will--in a "vacuum." The question is would a genius still actualize their genius in the world if they were not also exposed to other geniuses? Science is an exploratory, stair-step process, a gradual building with plenty of flubs along the way, as is biological evolution, cultural evolution, intellectual evolution. Genius is taking the next step, blazing the next trail. It makes sense that scientists stand on the backs of other scientists because we are trying to collectively piece together the truth in science. A cultural context, an exchange of ideas, a society, these are the breeding grounds for valuable contributions to the improvement of human life and this is what gets recognized, these people are notable, these ideas withstand the test of time-survival of the fittest ideas-and these are geniuses, who shed a bit more light on the truth, expand the territory of human understanding, reveal something useful. Mathematics came out of nowhere, every idea was originally born in a mind for the first time, and as our ability to organize and transmit these ideas increases, the breeding ground becomes more fertile. So we're all standing on the backs of thinkers who came before us, that is an inescapable, intrinsic part of our social reality for people who think and communicate in the world, yet whose back did the first thinkers stand on? I think it is important to remember the lesson of Socrates at this point, thinking for yourself and taking that step into the unknown...daring to question basic fundamental assumptions, to discover the truth for yourself, this is the spirit in which we ought to inquire into the world, an old world with long history which is yet always new. And this is the spirit that has driven human discovery.