Right now on TV I am watching Good Will Hunting. I absolutely love this movie.
When I first saw it in the theaters, I was hooked from the moment I saw mathematical equations shifting across the screen in the introductory montage. I just was entranced by this whole movie, and I wished that I could be as brilliant as Will Hunting, and the Matt Damon would somehow find me and want to marry me.
This brings me to an article I read a while ago, but has resonated with me for a long time. I've been wanting to write a post about it but have not had the time to really put the appropriate thought into it.
The article discusses how we as a society tend to equate genius with precocity, whereas he says in reality, there really are two kinds of genius, the kind that builds, builds, and builds into a late-career apex, and the other is the kind we are accustomed to, precocious genius. The analysis he performs is truly fascinating. I *highly* recommend that you read this article.
I think that we as academics tend to focus on precocity. After all, it's the easiest way to to determine near-term success, and since we need results sooner rather than later this works. However, I think that there are a lot of "non-traditional" people out there who are capable of great genius later. I like to think of myself as having this possibility, not necessarily of genius but of improvement over a lifetime. I've always been pretty good at stuff, but my recent development as a computer scientist has really made me think the best is to come. I just hope that whomever looks to hire me in the future can see and accept that.
Will Hunting is clearly a precocious genius, but I wonder what his later career would be like. Did he flameout? Did he continue to be brilliant? Was he happy? Did he contribute to the world?
Monday, December 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have thought about this subject as well...
...and i agree with you. I have never truly been 'booksmart' so to speak, but i can put ideas together and build on the knowledge i gain. I hope that i will continue to grow and eventually will become successful. Good luck to you...and good luck to me.....
A few nights ago, I dreamt that I had a husband who wasn't Matt Damon, but who looked exactly as Matt Damon did in Bourne Supremacy. The only problem was that I thought the dream was real, so I couldn't believe my luck. My husband kept gently taking my arm and asking, "What's wrong? Don't you want to go to dinner?" And we kept walking through a bright place, with three-story escalators and white marble floors. It was like winning the Lotto.
Needless to say, I was crushed when I woke up. The last time this happened to me, I was fifteen, and I'd dreamt that my crush had made me his girlfriend. Sigh.
Oh, about the substance of your post: I've always been pegged as extremely intelligent, but I've (correctly) felt that this intelligence has been hobbled by a few dozen thousand character flaws. Lately, though, I feel that when I work hard, I can achieve truly magnificent summits of understanding, and that, if I am not a genius, at least I'm fortunate enough to have the capacity to greatly contribute to the work of a real genius, someday.
This is probably similar to how it will go for you (except for all I know you are a genius, whereas I know plainly that I am not). Truly, you have a bright future.
I hope that I, like you, am "non traditional". Perhaps there is hope, after all...
Yeah - I have eureka moments that are built on the basis of other peoples work and I dont have a problem with it. Eppendork doesnt see the value in reinventing the wheel just to make other people happy. No one works in Science by their own little selves (although I have just a read a paper with one author - quite a big piece of work for one person - in very small print in the acknowledgements was his tech who I believe had done a decent share of the work - not on author list grrr Eppendork hates that sort of rank pulling shite!). Anywho - I think have PO-tential - maybe Eppendork is a "non-traditional" genius in the making - hmmmm.
E.
Post a Comment