Hacker News Reader

Comment by philelly | Hacker News Reader

old definition of genius: exceedingly rare brain abnormality that confers exceptional intelligence.

gladwell definition of genius: exceedingly rare brain abnormality that confers drive to devote 10,000 hours to a random task.

forgive me if i don't feel inspired by this paradigm shift.

View on HN

I'm reading the book, and although everyone online latches on to the 10,000 hours hook, Gladwell's hypothesis is much more ecological, in the sense that it's not (primarily) some innate drive that gives "geniuses" (i.e. accomplished people) their edge, but the subtle stimuli/reinforcements people get from advantageous environments.

Genious in 10,000 hours in 10 years is challenging to obtain, and may indeed still require something special.

Can you do 10,000 hours in 25 years, though? You may still not be as recognized as Gates, but you'll have "da skillz".

Programmers do get one advantage, which is that our careers and our hobbies can coincide in ways that many can't (though it is not unique in this way).

You seem to miss the point which is rather clear. Genius is not Inate, It is man made. Basically he is saying that it is nurture which makes genius and not nature.

So just to explain it more clearly, it is the environmental circumstances which make a genius and not his genes.

Thank you for your contribution. Is it really impossible that a genetic difference accounts for some of a person's willingness and/or ability to devote the huge amount of effort that's required to become a 'genius' in any pursuit? I propose we extend your theory: the total inability to grasp complexity is also attributable entirely to environmental circumstances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com