Quote Originally Posted by Virulent View Post
Correct me if I misunderstand you dj, but if you're saying that genius is the spontaneous apprehension of novel concepts, I do disagree (though I hear that perspective a lot). Newton, Beethoven, and Einstein are all good examples of geniuses in my opinion; none of them were known for their spontaneity. They all spent incredible amounts of time on the accomplishments they are lauded for.
Actually, it has been well recognised that many scientists perform their best work before the age of 30. That is the time when the 'inspiration' tends to come and there is a well recognised phenomena known as the 'Philopause' which occurs as you get older - when your receptiveness to new ideas lessens. Newton is regarded to have underwent this. The Principia Mathematica, for which he is famous, was published when he was relatively young and his later life was spent dabbling in alchemy. Darwin formulated the basics of evolution theory while a young man travelling the world. Watson and Crick were relatively young researchers when they thought up DNA structure. After the philopause, many thinkers tend to enter a more dogmatic stage where they seek to defend old ideas against new ones rather than try to think up new ones of their own.

Spontaneity is in fact what many of them are known for. Consider the number of scientists who have credited their discovery to some inspirational dream or vision:

- Kekule and the Ourobouros snake dream leading to the solving of the benzene ring structure
- The image of the spiral staircase that led Watson and Crick to consider the structure of DNA as a double helix (and as an aside you may also want to consider the female co-worker who was not credited with her important role in the discovery)
- Einstien's story of his coming up with the rudiments of relativity while considering train time tables when travelling
- Darwin's finches.
- Roingten's key which led to the discovery of X-Rays

Note I have not included Newton's apple in this as this is largely considered apophrycal (as some of these may be)

I am not saying that there was also not a lot of hard work involved or that this work contiued after the philopause. The important point is that the genius idea comes as a flash of inspiration which then requires many years of work to consolidate. To become a great, revolutionary scientist requires a combination of an inspiration, intelligence and hard work - the latter usually to push an idea in to acceptance against the resistance of your older colleagues.

This is why I consider genius to be the ability to be open to inspirations rather than a function of intelligence.

To be clear, what I'm saying is that a genius doesn't see things differently because its natural for them to do so - they see things differently because they have an unnatural focus. Mankind is rarely characterized by the kind of ant-like persistence exhibited by a genius like Kant, who never traveled more than 40 miles from his birthplace of Konigsberg... who always took a walk around town at the same time, at the same pace... who consumed the same thing for breakfast and lunch every day until he was in his 50s.
I think there is a natural tendency inherent in the thoughts of such people. Inspiration can come from anything and I think a genius is someone who is always open to it. The obsession aspect becomes more important in ensuring that the idea gains acceptance and this is where women will have suffered in the past. A genius is someone who has usually done something which is also controversial - they rail against the establishment. Newton faced opposition from peers, Einstien was accused of overturning Newton, Darwin was scared to publish for many years out of fear of the church. Galileo also had problems with the church. Paracelsus was a famous anti-establishmentarian who argued that the teaching methods used by medical schools were wrong. Kant was responsible for overturning the philosophical practise of 'introspection' and allowing the evolution of modern psychology. They all had to face quite severe opposition from older, more dogmatic colleagues. To achieve that you need persistance, an unassailable ego and, frankly, the respect of your peers. I suspect that women suffer in this process because until quite recently they did not have the respect of peers to help them.

Therefore, I argue that the reason why there are few female geniuses acknowledged (in science at least) is more due to the fact they were not allowed to participate in the process of peer review in the same way that male scientists were and when they did take part in the process were often ignored or sidelined in favour of male colleagues.

Even Archimedes, famous for his "eureka" moment as he came to understand displacement, didn't figure it out the moment he hopped in the bath. According to Pliny, he'd been puzzling over King Hiero's problem for months.
Yes, but would he have made the connection if he'd not been thinking about it? Would he have solved the problem if he'd not got into the bath at the right time? If he'd been thinking about a different problem, would he have come up with something different?

As Pratchett says 'If he'd taken the lift instead of the stairs the whole concept of genetics could have been markedly different (though much faster and only licensed to carry 8 people).'

The important point is that there is a lot of luck involved - the right mind in the right place at the right time and thinking on the right problem. And the right mind has to be in the right receptive state.