GracefulFlavor

I’m downright fascinated by the idea of genius in all its forms. I believe that many people have some level of giftedness in a particular area (or areas), and just now science is learning that static IQ tests in a traditional context cannot capture the essence (or multi-dimensionality) of genius or near-genius intelligence. Someone with a poor IQ in, say, symbolic logic might have an otherwordly emotional intelligence. This would make him rather below average on paper in a classical sense, but absolutely amazing when it comes to relating to others, empathy, leadership and other humanized endeavors.

David Shenk is writing a book that looks incredible, and he as a blog to go along with his book’s progress. If this sort of thing interests you, I encourage you to take a look at his blog periodically and see what he’s up to.

Most interesting concept so far:

Here is the strangest and most enticing thing about this subject: the invisibility factor. We see people being good at stuff — we don’t see them becoming good. I want to try to make the process visible.

What a great point. It’s easy to see geniuses at the top of their game, once they’ve mastered whatever skill their genius provides them; we see Tiger Woods drain 40-foot putts and nail 330-yard drives down a narrow fairway. What we don’t see are these gifted people actually becoming masterful at what they do. It’s not magic, and while they have a natural bias towards something, they still have to travel the road from neophyte to master. It’s just that the trip is far quicker for them than it would be for you or I.

Awesome stuff.

[via kottke.org]

Technorati Tags: science, intelligence, genius, IQ