The Myth of the Lone Genius is a bullshit cliche and we would do well to stop parroting it to young people like it is some deep insight into the nature of innovation.
It's an overriding myth because it seems to fulfill our fantasies of the hero's journey, and makes for a better (dare I say cinematic) story. When I had looked at it recently I came to a similar conclusion that it's not just the genius herself that's important, but being part of a productive genius cluster - https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/eureka-on-the-clustering-of-geniuses
Great article, thanks for sharing. I think you provide a much more nuanced view of innovation/genius (collaboration/networks are clearly very important, more than I allow for in this article). I guess I'm wondering about the inspirational value of the lone genius story itself and what we should be telling a would-be future genius; maybe the message is - yes, you can be a genius who comes up with a brilliant ideas and you need to believe that you can do it, but creativity is also a network phenomenon and you will be aided greatly by finding other like-minded smart people and working closely with them.
It sound trivial, but it may help to split the arguments for/against a lone genius into two parts:
1) "lone": How much did the "lone genius" directly discuss the idea with others?
2) "detached": How absurd or "out of the box" was the idea compared to the general scientific insight of that time? Were there other people around having similar ideas? Would someone else have come up with the same idea a few years later?
As you discuss, Einstein had very limited direct discussions with other contributing scientists when he developed special relativity. So he was clearly "lone". Nevertheless, according to Einstein's himself, his special relativity theory was not detached from the scientific community, and in hindsight he speculated that others would have come up with the same idea within a few years without him. "There is no doubt, that the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity
It was similar for calculus, which was developed independently by Newton and Leibniz. This doesn't mean that those people were not geniuses. Not at all! It needs a genius to recognize what is "in the air". But there are often several geniuses, all of them capable of getting the idea, and only one of them will be first. Yet the discovery can be a "heureka" moment to the person who has the idea.
Agreed, I think Calculus is a great example that while Newton and Leibnitz were indeed geniuses, Calculus wasnt invented at that time because of a lack of geniuses in the centuries prior. Rather geniuses and less gifted mathematicians had done the preparatory work so that when those two came along, Calculus was within reach for the work of a single (exceptional) person. Without those two, Calculus would have been found anyway, maybe it would have taken one generation longer.
I think the same applies to all discoveries: the most important factor is if the groundwork has been done. What a genius can do is extend a bit further from that ground than anybody else and thus discover the next level first.
So what a successful genius does is *make progress happen faster*. But that can still be modeled within a framework of lots of people contributing to scientific progress on a Bell curve. We don't need to return to a Great Men of History model where lone geniuses are in a category of their own that behaves inherently differently from everybody else.
I think the other important idea in the post is about doing big projects with potentially big, but far-off and uncertain benefits vs many small incremental projects. We obviously need both and I would agree that in the pursuit of legibility, we have veered too far into the latter.
-Einstein is the good exemple why lone genius does not exist (imho), his theories are breakthrough over existent ones, but you have to know what geniuses before you have wrote.
-Ramanajuan is probably what's a lone genius looks like
Can you provide any evidence that "The myth of the lone genius" prevents "geniuses" from doing their work. None of the quotes that you provided from proponents of the myth seems to support this or your conclusions 4-6. In fact, you seem to be mis-reading the quote “hard slog of large armies of individuals, each making—at best—a tiny step or two forward” as an army of the Randian masses, rather than an army of highly intelligent individuals who spend a lot of time thinking deeply about their various subject matter.
I pose a counter question, has the cult of the individual, which has been a dominant ideology in the United states since the Reagan years, helped promote scientific progress by providing support for geniuses. I would say no, since this ideology is closely linked with conservatism which has worked tirelessly to cut spending including that on spending on scientific research. Lack of funding is a real impediment to spending a lot of time thinking deeply about your chosen topic.
Cheap shot:
"The problem here is that the myth of the lone genius is itself a myth. History (ancient and recent) is full of geniuses who came up with a revolutionary idea largely on their own"
This sentence reads like "Of course the myth of the lone genius is itself a myth. Look at all these myths of lone geniuses they are full of geniuses.
No empirical evidence, my argument is more philosophical/inspirational/educational. I'm not sure to what extent the myth (as I see it) has an effect, but the fact that it is so pervasive makes me wonder if it's not helping or at least not as useful/interesting a point as some people think it is.
"hard slog of large armies of individuals, each making—at best—a tiny step or two forward” as an army of the Randian masses, rather than an army of highly intelligent individuals who spend a lot of time thinking deeply about their various subject matter.".... I would argue that the question is what kind of thinking/working are these highly intelligent individuals doing? Perhaps the organization/practice/philosophy of modern science (including the myth of the long genius) is influencing scientists to have less trust in their own "genius" and thus think in a different manner. But what do I know...
My impression is that there are plenty of people out there who just have a bullet proof egos, genius or not, and this type of discourse doesn't really effect their view of themselves. The one person I know who I would consider a genius, does his work for the love of it.
It's a good point and probably true for most "geniuses", but I would also argue that Inspirational stories and cultural narratives matter, especially to young talented thinkers who face challenging circumstances/criticism. Sure, this may only matter on the margins, but in a modern science that is increasingly a crapshoot in terms of individual success, we want scientists who have confidence in themselves to think individually. Working in a team is not the same as working by yourself, they lead to distinct forms of thinking/working that have their own strengths/weaknesses. Science requires more teamwork than ever, that's necessary and a good thing, but that doesn't mean there are costs.
"I would also argue that Inspirational stories and cultural narratives matter, especially to young talented thinkers who face challenging circumstances/criticism. Sure, this may only matter on the margins" I think we are in agreement here that this is a good thing to an extent, but isn't the end all be all. This could be tied in with the idea, more associated with the left, that "Diversity Matters" in terms of providing Inspirational stories and cultural narratives about pathways to success. The quintessential example being Obama's presidency (like him or not) as inspirational story for AA children.
One of your other commenters said this "It's an overriding myth because it seems to fulfill our fantasies of the hero's journey," I think that they are right in this and I think for this reason we don't have to worry about it going away, because A) It is easier to write History this way, B) People engage with this narrative style more so it sells more and C) If we are talking about younger audiences, the main focus is getting them interested in Science with a good story and less about a nuanced discussion of who exactly should get what credit for what. Hopefully these younger readers also aren't reading the neoliberal garbage on vox.com either, but who knows what Gen-Z is doing.
I guess to be fair, what evidence could you possibly provide. What it sounds like you are arguing for is a subset of the Great Man Theory of history, which I would say is the dominate paradigm for Historical narrative as it is presented to students below the university level. There is nothing more pervasive than hearing about how Einstein or Newton were super geniuses. The myth articles are not so pervasive that they are countering the way science history is taught to the general public. The good news there is your side is still winning. As for my personal opinion, I do think that the contribute of a lot of individuals are overstated, but the geniuses are essential, and I think that there are many more that are just as important, but we have never heard of.
Definitely a subset of Great Man Theory of history, that would have been a good connection to make. Both sides of the coin are important, and I guess all I'm trying to do here are highlight that there may be costs to downplaying either side too much.
I guess I had always wondered about the "lone genius" idea in a way that focused more on the "genius" part than the "lone" part - to what extent were the originators of historically important ideas replaceable? Was relativity something someone else would have come up with within the next five or so years anyway, or was there something specific to Einstein that made him uniquely able to come up with it?
Einstein was definitely not "uniquely able"; Hendrik Lorentz would've come up with special relativity, David Hilbert with general relativity had Einstein not existed (even though this is obviously conjecture, there is ample historical evidence).
commented above - I would certainly agree with you that we would have figured relativity without Einstein, but you have to wonder how long it would have taken - 10, 20, or 30 years? There is added value in getting discoveries sooner (e.g. something with medical implications). I also wonder about the contingency/path-dependence of science - if it had been discovered at another time by another person would science (and history) have followed the same path?
To me, the question is "Are certain advancements inevitable once preconditions are met?" If Einstein had been hit by a truck at age 3, would we now have a theory of relativity from someone else? My gut instincts is that the answer is yes. But short of experiments bumping off geniuses and waiting, it's going to have to remain in the realm of thought experiments :-)
More to the point, I see the Myth of the Lone Genius as push back against the human brain's tendency to over-value the remarkable and conflate exceptional competence in one area with competence in all.
Like most noble lies, it's designed to make us look at things a little more rationally than our brains would prefer. It's also not terribly likely to succeed. The brain gets what the brain wants.
Great points - you are talking about the "Halo Effect" I believe. I would certainly agree with you that we would have figured relativity without Einstein, but you have to wonder how long it would have taken - 10, 20, or 30 years? There is added value in getting discoveries sooner (e.g. something with medical implications). I also wonder about the contingency/path-dependence of science - if it had been discovered at another time by another person would science (and history) have followed the same path?
Not so sure about the electrical motor, electrical induction, etc. would have happened especially around anything requiring invention. And as Roger points out there is a huge value in bringing invention and discovery forward. The foundation of computers in Lull's Ars Magna circa 1315, which inspired (not sure it's the right word tho) Leibniz to invent (or discover) binary in 1701 is a great example of the cost of this delay. And an example of the not so easy substitution in someone else getting to it.
"Maybe I’m overthinking all of this - does the myth of the lone genius really affect anyone’s thinking in any substantial way?"
Yes - anti-lone-genius management is an active part of corporate thinking. I was discussing this article with a few friends and they all feel that the "myth of the lone genius" informs their workplaces.
Curious to know if those workplaces are involved in software development? That's an area where, due to it being an easy field to be self-taught in and then be able to make functional things, a lot of overconfident "cowboy coders" just kinda barge into a codebase, change a lot of things without trying to understand why anything was done the way it was historically (in favor of ripping old code out and rewriting it from scratch) and then moving on to another project after they get tired of maintaining the software.
The desire/need to counter that in corporate workplaces often stems from the fact that this way of working often focuses on flashy features that look great to the non-technical stakeholders in the project, while the other technical contributors to the project can often see the the mess that this person is making, which will inevitably cause problems for those who are focused on ensuring that the products are maintainable and non-brittle, as the cracks often don't begin to show until after there's been wider adoption (at which point, the "cowboy coder" has received accolades for their shiny new toy and moved on to the next project, never to be seen again.
Those aren't "cowboys", those are people high in the personality trait of Openness. They love new things and are easily bored. They like starting projects - finishing them, not so much. New for the sake of new. They are also typically socially adept and liked by others, which makes bringing up their shortcomings sound like sour grapes, especially from the dour low Openness people who do all the hard work of making everything fit.
I'm not sure what you think "cowboys" is implying that your armchair psychology is disproving.
I will note, though, that "typically socially adept and liked by others" is not an especially common trait of the types of people I'm describing. Liking new things for newness, definitely. But socially, these people are typically especially non-adept at; he is usually a bit of a loner, who has managed to master a single social skill - that of promising to deliver anything someone else asks of them.
In effect, they're a salesman. As a result, the people who hear their shortcomings are often less perceiving those comments as sour grapes, and more often perceiving them as laziness and/or incompetence, despite them most frequently coming from those who are *less* lazy/incompetent than the cowboy they're describing.
I'm not really sure exactly why anyone would want to believe in either side of this. People are different, aren't they? There are plenty of examples of people achieving breakthrough work largely independently and also some great collaborations.
One thing I have noticed: The more alone you are the better your reality testing needs to be to avoid becoming a crackpot. And reality testing can be startlingly domain specific. This might be a driver of the debate.
There is definitely a spectrum between the lone genius/standing on the shoulders of giants narrative as you say. Inspirational stories and cultural narratives matter, especially to young talented thinkers who face challenging circumstances/criticism. Sure this may only matter on the margins, but in a modern science that is increasingly a crapshoot in terms of individual success, we want scientists who have confidence in themselves to think individually. Working in a team is not the same as working by yourself, they lead to distinct forms of thinking/working that have their own strengths/weaknesses. Science requires more teamwork than ever, that's necessary and a good thing, but that doesn't mean there are costs.
Your second is very well taken, that is the downside of too much belief in the lone genius idea.
I agree, and though I would even say that current (academic) culture is becoming worse at encouraging critical thought in general, I want to play devils advocate on why the myth may be inconsequential or even good for mental health: Revolutionary ideas require breaks with conventions and preconceptions, and critical thought of the highest order, so the myth filters those unfit to spend their time doing this and keeps them sane and in society. Revolutionary thinkers are pulled where they need to go by their confidence in their idea or direction of thought, so the myth rightfully filters out those who are less confident in their idea (or capacity for revolutionary thought) than they are in what others/society prescribes them (the myth).
Self confidence isn’t the best filter, especially if filtering happens before people have had the chance to prove themselves and their ideas. It’s not the worst filter, and it would be impossible to get rid of that self selection if we wanted to. I don’t think it needs encouragement though.
The thing is, the lone genius is a common trope in TV and movies (and Atlas Shrugged) and thus promotes idea #4 which you attribute instead to the idea that "lone genius is a myth".
The trope portrays geniuses as so smart and so fast and so prolific that a puny human with a low IQ like 125 has little hope of having any relevance in comparison. Which is why I think of "lone genius" as a dangerous myth despite the fact that I myself behave like a lone genius (spending years developing various open source software and ideas, alone, with my puny IQ-125 thought processes)
Plus, I've known for like 15 years that I would perform better if I had a partner to work with me. I could tell because almost all successful software projects are done by multiple people. I figure my lack of partners is why it takes me so damn long to build interesting things.
Good point, I guess it's an open question whether the lone genius trope or lone genius myth is more common now. My feeling was that there has been an overcorrection and we should be aware that there may be a downside to having the "lone genius myth" narrative become too dominant.
This is an interesting take. It made me wonder that perhaps what we call the proverbial 'Eureka moment' isn't just a very particular kind of luck. This rare luck is very particular because the proto-genius must be in a rather specific place and time both physically and --perhaps most importantly-- a social or professional place and time in order to bump into the right idea, and mots critically have that idea taken seriously enough by others.
First, you need to put away your thesaurus and get your terminology straight: "myth", "cliche", "archetype". Which one of these is the concept of the "lone genius", exactly? Is it supposed to be all three, or even more?
Second, you need to learn what a straw man argument is. Almost no one has ever believed in the scarecrow you raise, nor has it had any influence on practical activity. The debate, assuming there is one, is over just how solitary a given individual is who produces great work. At times in your very confused piece you seem to get this, sort of, but your palpable a priori bias against the very idea (descending to profanity is a common giveaway) gives your rant very little credibility.
As to your erroneous assessment of genius in purely social and collectivist terms, that will have to await another day. I'll give you a hint, though: Read Thomas Gray's "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard", sometime.
My daughter just started a Science Degree at Uni (here is Australia), and the very first day she told me they learned that there was no such thing as a lone genius. Einstein etc were all collaborators.
Well, the new narrative IS to decry the solitary genius, and even if he had a conversation once in his life, then THAT is eveidence of collaboration!
How could Einstein have found relativity if Euclid had not prepared the way?!
Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Tesla, Newtom (alone because of the plague) - they were 'lone geniuses' (in the broad sense) as a direct counterpoint to today's huge collaborations (gravity waves!).
It does not mean they did not build on the work of others before them - they did not just pop into existence - discover a universal law - and that's it.
I liked your article, and I tjink it IS timely and relevant - as i say, my daughter's university has this new narrative, and ignores things like: Einstein's Annus Mirabilis was lone genius in nature, but maybe when he moved to Caltech, he was more collaborative in trying to unify quantum/relativity. No nuance is allowed...
Thank you so much for this comment! This is is very much the narrative that I am trying to counter, and as a high school science teacher myself that fears it is becoming inculcated into our youth, it is great to hear that a concerned parent is reading and agreeing with my essay!
Just as a follow up: I did some more research, and it seems that from about 2012 onwards, this new narrative of the 'myth of the lone genius' has been propogating.
And then I found article after article saying that this lone genius trope is damaging to LQBTIQ+, women, and POC. That seems to be the real reason it is being dismantled.
So I spoke to my colleagues (women, POC) - and they said: well that's all well and good (for there has been barriers to them in research), but if they DO make a breakthrough, then we CANNOT now ascribe it to their 'genius' - we MUST put it down to a team effort.
Doesn't that also diminish their efforts?
So, to be clear, we are denying the 'lone genius' because there are minorities that have had difficulty and barriers to careers, and since they were sometimes denied the chance to be a 'lone genius', we will re-write history, deny this ever happened, and now everyone is equal. (Yes, there is some snark in there).
The problem is - since women (let's just use the men/women divide) were hitorically denied much (eg: Rosalind Franklin/DNA), it is a fact that the preponderance of 'lone geniuses' in the past were 'white men' - Einstein, Newton etc. Rather than see this as a fact, and that it does NOT mean that women CANNOT be lone geniuses, but were denied the opportunity, we will actually deny the lone genius completely. But that erases all women who made their lone discoveries...an infinite loop.
Sorry for the long rant. I just can't stand the binary -no nuance.
They just define 'lone' as living in a vacuum. So if you ever discussed anything with even your neighbour, then you were not 'lone' - you collaborated. Hence they prove their thesis. Strawman. Semantics. Nonsense.
Yup, well said. The goal should be to work towards a future in which "lone geniuses" come in all shapes, sizes, and genders. Providing any kind of distorted picture (including too much emphasis on the lone genius narrative, but we aren't in danger of that I think) is not going to help us get to that future.
Another brilliant refutation by a genius with an enormous vocabulary (as well as great spelling ability). Well, at least this little pissani-ant made an effort., feeble as it is. But seriously, one conversation = collaboration? *laughs*
I really thought it would be too obvious to mention, but apparently not, so let me repeat. My point was that no one has ever believed in the extreme "lone genius" straw man that our porcine contributor (as well as you) sets alight. Read my initial response again, as often as you need to, and move your lips, if necessary. That might help.
Brilliant riposte! I stand refuted. QED. Truly the work of a genius! I can feel the spittle hitting the screen.
I will try not to read your writing again, as it is a complete and utter waste of time, but make no promises, since triggering such replies from infantile little pismires such as you is its own reward. I feel sorry for your students, by the way. And does the school you work for know how remarkably childish and immature you are in your private ranting?
One last helpful hint: "Excretorum" would be a better name for your little playpen.
We are being followed by a teenager. 2 years later!
Seriously, once this became clear, I am not interested in engaging. I allow young people their outrage. It's all good.
Anyway, the original discussion was good...never thought I'd read it all again, but here we are (I had no memory of it when I got the belated faux-outrage response yesterday).
Thanks again for your work. Let the children play. Bye.
As I mentioned, it took about five seconds, all by myself. No collaboration. But idiots and mouth-breathers such as the two of you do *inspire* me sometimes. :-D
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in the comments already but I have heard several times that Mullis' breakthrough was related to his use of LSD, and came to him during/after a trip.
This also reminds me of current research on psychedelics and creativity (see e.g. the REBUS model by Carhart-Harris and Friston), in which psychedelics are related to "prior relaxation" from a Bayesian brain perspective, allowing the user to relax preconceived notions and gain new perspectives on reality.
Coincidentally, this also fits the narrative of the unfavourable turns Mullis later took, which could relate to a overly relaxed/creative take on reality.
This is the work/my of a lone Inventor: Latest InFlow Generation: State of the Art Novel InFlow Tech: ·1-Gearturbine Reaction Turbine Rotary Turbo, ·2-Imploturbocompressor Impulse Turbine 1 Compression Step:
·1-Gearturbine: Reaction Turbine, ·Rotary-Turbo, Similar System of the Aeolipile ·Heron Steam Device from 10-70 AD, ·With Retrodynamic = DextroGiro/RPM VS LevoGiro/InFlow, + ·Ying Yang Circular Power Type, ·Non Waste Parasitic Power Looses Type, ·8-X,Y Thermodynamic Cycle Way Steps.
·2-Imploturbocompressor: Impulse Turbine, ·Implo-Ducted, One Moving Part System Excellence Design, · InFlow Goes from Macro-Flow to Micro-Flow by Implosion/And Inverse, ·One Compression Step, ·Circular Dynamic Motion. Implosion Way Type, ·Same Nature of a Hurricane Satellite View.
It's an overriding myth because it seems to fulfill our fantasies of the hero's journey, and makes for a better (dare I say cinematic) story. When I had looked at it recently I came to a similar conclusion that it's not just the genius herself that's important, but being part of a productive genius cluster - https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/eureka-on-the-clustering-of-geniuses
Great article, thanks for sharing. I think you provide a much more nuanced view of innovation/genius (collaboration/networks are clearly very important, more than I allow for in this article). I guess I'm wondering about the inspirational value of the lone genius story itself and what we should be telling a would-be future genius; maybe the message is - yes, you can be a genius who comes up with a brilliant ideas and you need to believe that you can do it, but creativity is also a network phenomenon and you will be aided greatly by finding other like-minded smart people and working closely with them.
It sound trivial, but it may help to split the arguments for/against a lone genius into two parts:
1) "lone": How much did the "lone genius" directly discuss the idea with others?
2) "detached": How absurd or "out of the box" was the idea compared to the general scientific insight of that time? Were there other people around having similar ideas? Would someone else have come up with the same idea a few years later?
As you discuss, Einstein had very limited direct discussions with other contributing scientists when he developed special relativity. So he was clearly "lone". Nevertheless, according to Einstein's himself, his special relativity theory was not detached from the scientific community, and in hindsight he speculated that others would have come up with the same idea within a few years without him. "There is no doubt, that the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity
It was similar for calculus, which was developed independently by Newton and Leibniz. This doesn't mean that those people were not geniuses. Not at all! It needs a genius to recognize what is "in the air". But there are often several geniuses, all of them capable of getting the idea, and only one of them will be first. Yet the discovery can be a "heureka" moment to the person who has the idea.
Agreed, I think Calculus is a great example that while Newton and Leibnitz were indeed geniuses, Calculus wasnt invented at that time because of a lack of geniuses in the centuries prior. Rather geniuses and less gifted mathematicians had done the preparatory work so that when those two came along, Calculus was within reach for the work of a single (exceptional) person. Without those two, Calculus would have been found anyway, maybe it would have taken one generation longer.
I think the same applies to all discoveries: the most important factor is if the groundwork has been done. What a genius can do is extend a bit further from that ground than anybody else and thus discover the next level first.
So what a successful genius does is *make progress happen faster*. But that can still be modeled within a framework of lots of people contributing to scientific progress on a Bell curve. We don't need to return to a Great Men of History model where lone geniuses are in a category of their own that behaves inherently differently from everybody else.
I think the other important idea in the post is about doing big projects with potentially big, but far-off and uncertain benefits vs many small incremental projects. We obviously need both and I would agree that in the pursuit of legibility, we have veered too far into the latter.
my 2 pences:
-Einstein is the good exemple why lone genius does not exist (imho), his theories are breakthrough over existent ones, but you have to know what geniuses before you have wrote.
-Ramanajuan is probably what's a lone genius looks like
Can you provide any evidence that "The myth of the lone genius" prevents "geniuses" from doing their work. None of the quotes that you provided from proponents of the myth seems to support this or your conclusions 4-6. In fact, you seem to be mis-reading the quote “hard slog of large armies of individuals, each making—at best—a tiny step or two forward” as an army of the Randian masses, rather than an army of highly intelligent individuals who spend a lot of time thinking deeply about their various subject matter.
I pose a counter question, has the cult of the individual, which has been a dominant ideology in the United states since the Reagan years, helped promote scientific progress by providing support for geniuses. I would say no, since this ideology is closely linked with conservatism which has worked tirelessly to cut spending including that on spending on scientific research. Lack of funding is a real impediment to spending a lot of time thinking deeply about your chosen topic.
Cheap shot:
"The problem here is that the myth of the lone genius is itself a myth. History (ancient and recent) is full of geniuses who came up with a revolutionary idea largely on their own"
This sentence reads like "Of course the myth of the lone genius is itself a myth. Look at all these myths of lone geniuses they are full of geniuses.
No empirical evidence, my argument is more philosophical/inspirational/educational. I'm not sure to what extent the myth (as I see it) has an effect, but the fact that it is so pervasive makes me wonder if it's not helping or at least not as useful/interesting a point as some people think it is.
"hard slog of large armies of individuals, each making—at best—a tiny step or two forward” as an army of the Randian masses, rather than an army of highly intelligent individuals who spend a lot of time thinking deeply about their various subject matter.".... I would argue that the question is what kind of thinking/working are these highly intelligent individuals doing? Perhaps the organization/practice/philosophy of modern science (including the myth of the long genius) is influencing scientists to have less trust in their own "genius" and thus think in a different manner. But what do I know...
My impression is that there are plenty of people out there who just have a bullet proof egos, genius or not, and this type of discourse doesn't really effect their view of themselves. The one person I know who I would consider a genius, does his work for the love of it.
It's a good point and probably true for most "geniuses", but I would also argue that Inspirational stories and cultural narratives matter, especially to young talented thinkers who face challenging circumstances/criticism. Sure, this may only matter on the margins, but in a modern science that is increasingly a crapshoot in terms of individual success, we want scientists who have confidence in themselves to think individually. Working in a team is not the same as working by yourself, they lead to distinct forms of thinking/working that have their own strengths/weaknesses. Science requires more teamwork than ever, that's necessary and a good thing, but that doesn't mean there are costs.
"I would also argue that Inspirational stories and cultural narratives matter, especially to young talented thinkers who face challenging circumstances/criticism. Sure, this may only matter on the margins" I think we are in agreement here that this is a good thing to an extent, but isn't the end all be all. This could be tied in with the idea, more associated with the left, that "Diversity Matters" in terms of providing Inspirational stories and cultural narratives about pathways to success. The quintessential example being Obama's presidency (like him or not) as inspirational story for AA children.
One of your other commenters said this "It's an overriding myth because it seems to fulfill our fantasies of the hero's journey," I think that they are right in this and I think for this reason we don't have to worry about it going away, because A) It is easier to write History this way, B) People engage with this narrative style more so it sells more and C) If we are talking about younger audiences, the main focus is getting them interested in Science with a good story and less about a nuanced discussion of who exactly should get what credit for what. Hopefully these younger readers also aren't reading the neoliberal garbage on vox.com either, but who knows what Gen-Z is doing.
agreed and well said!
I guess to be fair, what evidence could you possibly provide. What it sounds like you are arguing for is a subset of the Great Man Theory of history, which I would say is the dominate paradigm for Historical narrative as it is presented to students below the university level. There is nothing more pervasive than hearing about how Einstein or Newton were super geniuses. The myth articles are not so pervasive that they are countering the way science history is taught to the general public. The good news there is your side is still winning. As for my personal opinion, I do think that the contribute of a lot of individuals are overstated, but the geniuses are essential, and I think that there are many more that are just as important, but we have never heard of.
Definitely a subset of Great Man Theory of history, that would have been a good connection to make. Both sides of the coin are important, and I guess all I'm trying to do here are highlight that there may be costs to downplaying either side too much.
An odd take. So it's wrong because someone has brainworms eating away shouting "Reagan, Rand" all day long.
I guess I had always wondered about the "lone genius" idea in a way that focused more on the "genius" part than the "lone" part - to what extent were the originators of historically important ideas replaceable? Was relativity something someone else would have come up with within the next five or so years anyway, or was there something specific to Einstein that made him uniquely able to come up with it?
Einstein was definitely not "uniquely able"; Hendrik Lorentz would've come up with special relativity, David Hilbert with general relativity had Einstein not existed (even though this is obviously conjecture, there is ample historical evidence).
commented above - I would certainly agree with you that we would have figured relativity without Einstein, but you have to wonder how long it would have taken - 10, 20, or 30 years? There is added value in getting discoveries sooner (e.g. something with medical implications). I also wonder about the contingency/path-dependence of science - if it had been discovered at another time by another person would science (and history) have followed the same path?
To me, the question is "Are certain advancements inevitable once preconditions are met?" If Einstein had been hit by a truck at age 3, would we now have a theory of relativity from someone else? My gut instincts is that the answer is yes. But short of experiments bumping off geniuses and waiting, it's going to have to remain in the realm of thought experiments :-)
More to the point, I see the Myth of the Lone Genius as push back against the human brain's tendency to over-value the remarkable and conflate exceptional competence in one area with competence in all.
Like most noble lies, it's designed to make us look at things a little more rationally than our brains would prefer. It's also not terribly likely to succeed. The brain gets what the brain wants.
Great points - you are talking about the "Halo Effect" I believe. I would certainly agree with you that we would have figured relativity without Einstein, but you have to wonder how long it would have taken - 10, 20, or 30 years? There is added value in getting discoveries sooner (e.g. something with medical implications). I also wonder about the contingency/path-dependence of science - if it had been discovered at another time by another person would science (and history) have followed the same path?
Not so sure about the electrical motor, electrical induction, etc. would have happened especially around anything requiring invention. And as Roger points out there is a huge value in bringing invention and discovery forward. The foundation of computers in Lull's Ars Magna circa 1315, which inspired (not sure it's the right word tho) Leibniz to invent (or discover) binary in 1701 is a great example of the cost of this delay. And an example of the not so easy substitution in someone else getting to it.
This is a great example and I may steal it in the future!
"Maybe I’m overthinking all of this - does the myth of the lone genius really affect anyone’s thinking in any substantial way?"
Yes - anti-lone-genius management is an active part of corporate thinking. I was discussing this article with a few friends and they all feel that the "myth of the lone genius" informs their workplaces.
Curious to know if those workplaces are involved in software development? That's an area where, due to it being an easy field to be self-taught in and then be able to make functional things, a lot of overconfident "cowboy coders" just kinda barge into a codebase, change a lot of things without trying to understand why anything was done the way it was historically (in favor of ripping old code out and rewriting it from scratch) and then moving on to another project after they get tired of maintaining the software.
The desire/need to counter that in corporate workplaces often stems from the fact that this way of working often focuses on flashy features that look great to the non-technical stakeholders in the project, while the other technical contributors to the project can often see the the mess that this person is making, which will inevitably cause problems for those who are focused on ensuring that the products are maintainable and non-brittle, as the cracks often don't begin to show until after there's been wider adoption (at which point, the "cowboy coder" has received accolades for their shiny new toy and moved on to the next project, never to be seen again.
One of three is software.
Those aren't "cowboys", those are people high in the personality trait of Openness. They love new things and are easily bored. They like starting projects - finishing them, not so much. New for the sake of new. They are also typically socially adept and liked by others, which makes bringing up their shortcomings sound like sour grapes, especially from the dour low Openness people who do all the hard work of making everything fit.
I'm not sure what you think "cowboys" is implying that your armchair psychology is disproving.
I will note, though, that "typically socially adept and liked by others" is not an especially common trait of the types of people I'm describing. Liking new things for newness, definitely. But socially, these people are typically especially non-adept at; he is usually a bit of a loner, who has managed to master a single social skill - that of promising to deliver anything someone else asks of them.
In effect, they're a salesman. As a result, the people who hear their shortcomings are often less perceiving those comments as sour grapes, and more often perceiving them as laziness and/or incompetence, despite them most frequently coming from those who are *less* lazy/incompetent than the cowboy they're describing.
Otto Rank wrote in 1932 about the cult of genius in Art and Artist.
"the value set on great artists depends on the predominant ide-
ology of their time; if it is still collective, that artist will be regarded as the greatest
of his time, and the finest representative of it in the future, who has expressed the
collective elements in their purest and most vigorous form. If on the other hand the
general ideology is interwoven with individualistic tendencies, as at the Renaissance
and in the succeeding “age of genius,” the greatest artist will be he who embodies
this individualized collective ideology in the purest form which means, who has most
definitely impressed on traditional forms the stamp of his personality, or (speaking in
collective terms) individualism. The highest type of artist is he who can use the typical
conflict of humanity within himself to produce collective values, which, though akin
to the traditional in form and content because in principle they spring from the same
conflict are yet individual, and new creations of these collective values, in that they
present the personal ideology of the artist who is the representative of his age.”
I'm not really sure exactly why anyone would want to believe in either side of this. People are different, aren't they? There are plenty of examples of people achieving breakthrough work largely independently and also some great collaborations.
One thing I have noticed: The more alone you are the better your reality testing needs to be to avoid becoming a crackpot. And reality testing can be startlingly domain specific. This might be a driver of the debate.
There is definitely a spectrum between the lone genius/standing on the shoulders of giants narrative as you say. Inspirational stories and cultural narratives matter, especially to young talented thinkers who face challenging circumstances/criticism. Sure this may only matter on the margins, but in a modern science that is increasingly a crapshoot in terms of individual success, we want scientists who have confidence in themselves to think individually. Working in a team is not the same as working by yourself, they lead to distinct forms of thinking/working that have their own strengths/weaknesses. Science requires more teamwork than ever, that's necessary and a good thing, but that doesn't mean there are costs.
Your second is very well taken, that is the downside of too much belief in the lone genius idea.
I think this is mostly a "you didn't build that" kind of ideological statement. Essentially an attempt to disperse praise for egalitarian reasons.
I agree, and though I would even say that current (academic) culture is becoming worse at encouraging critical thought in general, I want to play devils advocate on why the myth may be inconsequential or even good for mental health: Revolutionary ideas require breaks with conventions and preconceptions, and critical thought of the highest order, so the myth filters those unfit to spend their time doing this and keeps them sane and in society. Revolutionary thinkers are pulled where they need to go by their confidence in their idea or direction of thought, so the myth rightfully filters out those who are less confident in their idea (or capacity for revolutionary thought) than they are in what others/society prescribes them (the myth).
In short: People who are influenced by this myth are not the types to have revolutionary ideas.
Well said!
Self confidence isn’t the best filter, especially if filtering happens before people have had the chance to prove themselves and their ideas. It’s not the worst filter, and it would be impossible to get rid of that self selection if we wanted to. I don’t think it needs encouragement though.
The thing is, the lone genius is a common trope in TV and movies (and Atlas Shrugged) and thus promotes idea #4 which you attribute instead to the idea that "lone genius is a myth".
The trope portrays geniuses as so smart and so fast and so prolific that a puny human with a low IQ like 125 has little hope of having any relevance in comparison. Which is why I think of "lone genius" as a dangerous myth despite the fact that I myself behave like a lone genius (spending years developing various open source software and ideas, alone, with my puny IQ-125 thought processes)
Plus, I've known for like 15 years that I would perform better if I had a partner to work with me. I could tell because almost all successful software projects are done by multiple people. I figure my lack of partners is why it takes me so damn long to build interesting things.
Good point, I guess it's an open question whether the lone genius trope or lone genius myth is more common now. My feeling was that there has been an overcorrection and we should be aware that there may be a downside to having the "lone genius myth" narrative become too dominant.
This is an interesting take. It made me wonder that perhaps what we call the proverbial 'Eureka moment' isn't just a very particular kind of luck. This rare luck is very particular because the proto-genius must be in a rather specific place and time both physically and --perhaps most importantly-- a social or professional place and time in order to bump into the right idea, and mots critically have that idea taken seriously enough by others.
First, you need to put away your thesaurus and get your terminology straight: "myth", "cliche", "archetype". Which one of these is the concept of the "lone genius", exactly? Is it supposed to be all three, or even more?
Second, you need to learn what a straw man argument is. Almost no one has ever believed in the scarecrow you raise, nor has it had any influence on practical activity. The debate, assuming there is one, is over just how solitary a given individual is who produces great work. At times in your very confused piece you seem to get this, sort of, but your palpable a priori bias against the very idea (descending to profanity is a common giveaway) gives your rant very little credibility.
As to your erroneous assessment of genius in purely social and collectivist terms, that will have to await another day. I'll give you a hint, though: Read Thomas Gray's "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard", sometime.
That's an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing... eh on second thought, go fuck yourself and never read my writing again, you dipshit.
Props for a great reply.
My daughter just started a Science Degree at Uni (here is Australia), and the very first day she told me they learned that there was no such thing as a lone genius. Einstein etc were all collaborators.
Well, the new narrative IS to decry the solitary genius, and even if he had a conversation once in his life, then THAT is eveidence of collaboration!
How could Einstein have found relativity if Euclid had not prepared the way?!
Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Tesla, Newtom (alone because of the plague) - they were 'lone geniuses' (in the broad sense) as a direct counterpoint to today's huge collaborations (gravity waves!).
It does not mean they did not build on the work of others before them - they did not just pop into existence - discover a universal law - and that's it.
I liked your article, and I tjink it IS timely and relevant - as i say, my daughter's university has this new narrative, and ignores things like: Einstein's Annus Mirabilis was lone genius in nature, but maybe when he moved to Caltech, he was more collaborative in trying to unify quantum/relativity. No nuance is allowed...
Anyway, Al de Baran is a lone fuckwit...
Thank you so much for this comment! This is is very much the narrative that I am trying to counter, and as a high school science teacher myself that fears it is becoming inculcated into our youth, it is great to hear that a concerned parent is reading and agreeing with my essay!
And fuck Al de Baran hahaha
Ha! Ha! Ha! Did you think of that reply all by yourself, or did it require collaboration?
Just as a follow up: I did some more research, and it seems that from about 2012 onwards, this new narrative of the 'myth of the lone genius' has been propogating.
And then I found article after article saying that this lone genius trope is damaging to LQBTIQ+, women, and POC. That seems to be the real reason it is being dismantled.
So I spoke to my colleagues (women, POC) - and they said: well that's all well and good (for there has been barriers to them in research), but if they DO make a breakthrough, then we CANNOT now ascribe it to their 'genius' - we MUST put it down to a team effort.
Doesn't that also diminish their efforts?
So, to be clear, we are denying the 'lone genius' because there are minorities that have had difficulty and barriers to careers, and since they were sometimes denied the chance to be a 'lone genius', we will re-write history, deny this ever happened, and now everyone is equal. (Yes, there is some snark in there).
The problem is - since women (let's just use the men/women divide) were hitorically denied much (eg: Rosalind Franklin/DNA), it is a fact that the preponderance of 'lone geniuses' in the past were 'white men' - Einstein, Newton etc. Rather than see this as a fact, and that it does NOT mean that women CANNOT be lone geniuses, but were denied the opportunity, we will actually deny the lone genius completely. But that erases all women who made their lone discoveries...an infinite loop.
Sorry for the long rant. I just can't stand the binary -no nuance.
They just define 'lone' as living in a vacuum. So if you ever discussed anything with even your neighbour, then you were not 'lone' - you collaborated. Hence they prove their thesis. Strawman. Semantics. Nonsense.
Yup, well said. The goal should be to work towards a future in which "lone geniuses" come in all shapes, sizes, and genders. Providing any kind of distorted picture (including too much emphasis on the lone genius narrative, but we aren't in danger of that I think) is not going to help us get to that future.
"I just can't stand the binary -no nuance."
Oh, really? Then why is my plea for a nuanced understanding of the alleged "lone genius" trope so difficult for you to understand?
Another brilliant refutation by a genius with an enormous vocabulary (as well as great spelling ability). Well, at least this little pissani-ant made an effort., feeble as it is. But seriously, one conversation = collaboration? *laughs*
I really thought it would be too obvious to mention, but apparently not, so let me repeat. My point was that no one has ever believed in the extreme "lone genius" straw man that our porcine contributor (as well as you) sets alight. Read my initial response again, as often as you need to, and move your lips, if necessary. That might help.
Brilliant riposte! I stand refuted. QED. Truly the work of a genius! I can feel the spittle hitting the screen.
I will try not to read your writing again, as it is a complete and utter waste of time, but make no promises, since triggering such replies from infantile little pismires such as you is its own reward. I feel sorry for your students, by the way. And does the school you work for know how remarkably childish and immature you are in your private ranting?
One last helpful hint: "Excretorum" would be a better name for your little playpen.
Good one - did it take you three years to think of "Execretorum"?
He had help.
Clearly a collaboration.
Which proves him right...oh, how will we go on...
lmao
I figured it out from his next response below.
We are being followed by a teenager. 2 years later!
Seriously, once this became clear, I am not interested in engaging. I allow young people their outrage. It's all good.
Anyway, the original discussion was good...never thought I'd read it all again, but here we are (I had no memory of it when I got the belated faux-outrage response yesterday).
Thanks again for your work. Let the children play. Bye.
As I mentioned, it took about five seconds, all by myself. No collaboration. But idiots and mouth-breathers such as the two of you do *inspire* me sometimes. :-D
what a sad life you must live
It took about five seconds, actually, and all by myself.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere in the comments already but I have heard several times that Mullis' breakthrough was related to his use of LSD, and came to him during/after a trip.
This also reminds me of current research on psychedelics and creativity (see e.g. the REBUS model by Carhart-Harris and Friston), in which psychedelics are related to "prior relaxation" from a Bayesian brain perspective, allowing the user to relax preconceived notions and gain new perspectives on reality.
Coincidentally, this also fits the narrative of the unfavourable turns Mullis later took, which could relate to a overly relaxed/creative take on reality.
Yup, that is totally my understanding as well. I wrote about REBUS here:
https://rogersbacon.substack.com/p/the-cult-deficit-analysis-and-speculation
This is the work/my of a lone Inventor: Latest InFlow Generation: State of the Art Novel InFlow Tech: ·1-Gearturbine Reaction Turbine Rotary Turbo, ·2-Imploturbocompressor Impulse Turbine 1 Compression Step:
·1-Gearturbine: Reaction Turbine, ·Rotary-Turbo, Similar System of the Aeolipile ·Heron Steam Device from 10-70 AD, ·With Retrodynamic = DextroGiro/RPM VS LevoGiro/InFlow, + ·Ying Yang Circular Power Type, ·Non Waste Parasitic Power Looses Type, ·8-X,Y Thermodynamic Cycle Way Steps.
·2-Imploturbocompressor: Impulse Turbine, ·Implo-Ducted, One Moving Part System Excellence Design, · InFlow Goes from Macro-Flow to Micro-Flow by Implosion/And Inverse, ·One Compression Step, ·Circular Dynamic Motion. Implosion Way Type, ·Same Nature of a Hurricane Satellite View.
http://stateoftheartnovelinflowtech.blogspot.com
https://padlet.com/gearturbine/un2slbar3s94