Hacker News Reader

Comment by joggery | Hacker News Reader

So he was cold, frugal, petulant and severe? What did they expect? A genius that was easy to get on with? Was there ever such a one?

There's such a relish nowadays for pointing out how bad people were in private who created marvellous stuff which produced and produces unlimited benefits to society.

Especially unsocial geniuses. They are described as cold or inhuman despite perhaps being more human than the rest of us. After all it is only their integrity that allows their inner worlds to flourish.

(I suspect that sociable people are secretly afraid of other humans. Which is why they designate a subset of other humans as 'friends' and are nice to them on condition that they are nice back. They then project their personal issues onto humans outside that set.)

View on HN

>A genius that was easy to get on with? Was there ever such a one?

Yes, almost definitely. For instance, Benjamin Franklin was quite the socialite. Richard Feynman was also considered very sociable, and while many people also think he was an asshole, that may just be the effect of meeting tons and tons of people in your life.

>I suspect that sociable people are secretly afraid of other humans. Which is why they designate a subset of other humans as 'friends' and are nice to them on condition that they are nice back.

That's a really creepy thing to say. I'm not even particularly good with people, but I'm nice to my friends, family, etc because I actually like them.

Franklin and Feynman were smart but spread themselves too thinly and so didn't develop their genius, in part due to their social escapades. They didn't create as much as they should have. The test of 'getting on' with somebody would have to be something like roommates i.e. spending a significant amount of time together.

Yes it's creepy but ask yourself why. Perhaps it reveals something evil? It's not enough to like one's friends to refute this idea, which goes deep; it's about why you like them. Note that a truly good person loves his enemies while the highly sociable person will toady to some of his 'friends' and exploit others.

>Franklin and Feynman were smart but spread themselves too thinly and so didn't develop their genius,

Oh, no, they're only some of the most celebrated and accomplished men in our whole culture. It's not like they did anything with their lives /s.

>Note that a truly good person loves his enemies while the highly sociable person will toady to some of his 'friends' and exploit others.

Now you sound like you're just redefining "sociable".

There's a difference between celebrity and accomplishment. I'm claiming that to an extent they squandered their gifts and could have accomplished more of depth and value. John von Neumann is another example (too social; spread too thin).

It's understood that social people are people who enjoy socialising and have lots of friends. But I would say that appearances are deceptive and they're actually not close to any of them. This isn't an accident because what they're really seeking is to allay their secret fear by gaining fame and/or power. Which is just a mistake.

It's not wrong to have friends and to like them, even if only to honour the past, or because business demands it. But progress lies in a different (inner) direction.

> What did they expect? A genius that was easy to get on with? Was there ever such a one?

Is it possible that you're conflating successful people with geniuses? They're not necessarily the same, and, at least in my <30 years experience, most brilliant people/geniuses are pretty nice. And most successful people are jerks.

> After all it is only their integrity that allows their inner worlds to flourish.

I'd be curious to hear a description of how that works. My thinking on the matter is that it's largely a product of habit: they think a lot and they're good at it, and they're socially rewarded for it, so they think more and get even better at it, etc. Then, if some social difficulties show up in life, the path of least resistance to feeling valued is to keep doing the intellectual stuff that you're so good at, which people praise you for. It can become an escape and an excuse for avoiding other, difficult social aspects of being human.

Maybe that's a bit cynical—and I'd love to hear a counter—but it seems to me like that's typically (but not always) how it works.

It's not enough to think lots there has to be self-awareness too. This is because if you haven't yet formed a connection between two related ideas then the peripheral idea can only signal its relevance through a subtle feeling. Most people, especially smart people, either don't know or don't value what they are feeling. So they can't create.

Swift wasn't unsocial; he was a politician.

This article manages to entirely omit his political career, which, as feats of omission go, is pretty impressive.

While it may often be true, it is a bit like saying "the only good artist is a miserable one". In reality, the good artist is driven by their passion and misery is a passion life often hands us for free.

> So he was cold, frugal, petulant and severe? What did they expect? A genius that was easy to get on with? Was there ever such a one?

Sure. What makes you think smart people are always assholes?

That's a very cynical view of humanity that doesn't match my experience at all.

Okay, I'm interested in hearing your take then.

I don't have a particular summation of all humans. I just don't have any experience that leads me to believe sociable people are so because of fear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com