Hacker News Reader

Comment by geocrasher | Hacker News Reader

s/genius/resourceful and creative/g

That's not a slight. But being resourceful (and creative, of course) is what was displayed. There was no evidence of genius. Being resourceful and creative means using what you have on hand to achieve a goal.

For example, I wanted to make a gift for a friend who loves dinosaurs. I used old bicycle parts and various bits of metal I had left over from other projects and made her a 3 foot tall T-Rex. She loved it! Money spent = $0. Am I a genius? Probably not. Was I resourceful and creative? Definitely.

Perhaps for people who don't have a "hack the world!" mindset, it does appear as genius I suppose.

View on HN

> Perhaps for people who don't have a "hack the world!" mindset, it does appear as genius I suppose.

I think this is it. I've realized that as an engineer, I look at the local environment around me as a construct. If I don't like something or think it can be improved, I can redesign it better. Hell, I once got the traffic markings on an entire street changed by sending a single email to the right person pointing out something that annoyed me whenever I drove through that area.

I've realized that not everyone has this mindset though. So many people write things off as "just the way it is" without considering that they can be changed. Sure, YMMV. As an average Joe, I really don't have much power to change the tax code. But I do have a lot of control over my local environment.

I'm reminded of When I was teaching, I would occasionally hear students grumbling about the way their homework was being graded. But with enough time, you'll hear students grumbling about nearly everything, so I never paid it too much attention. I'd just check that the grader had followed the rubric, and then either make a grade correction if needed, or just tell the student that it had been graded accurately. After several years, I got a long-winded email from a student expressing their dissatisfaction with the way their assignments were being graded. But instead of solely complaining, this student explained _why_ they were upset and politely requested that I consider changing my rubric. After some discussion, I did just that. I didn't concede all their "demands", but I did make changes that made the students happy.

This was a student that understood that the class policies were a construct, and that a sincere discussion can be sufficient to incite change.

When I've learned some things in my time is that most engineers don't have this mindset because they are not allowed to have it. If you mean software engineer you might be right but not in the general regulated engineering jobs.

The way you get a lot of "this is the right way to do it" talk on Stack Overflow from people who don't actually answer the poster's question and know nothing of their constraints suggests that software engineers aren't inherently more likely to think this way.

(Author here) I absolutely love this story and your student's approach. Thank you for sharing.

I think you might be operating with a romanticized definition of what a genius is.

In fact a common definition of (higher) intelligence is the ability to see patterns (abstractions, properties, laws) in an otherwise random looking world.

Think of Darwin looking at birds, animals, vegetation, and being able to come up with something like the Laws of Natural Selection. Even today 99.999% of people would not see those patterns.

Think of Kepler looking at random movement of stars and planets on the sky and being able to come up with the Laws of Planetary Motion. Same thing, today 99.999% of people would not see those patterns.

On a much lower scale, the character in this text displayed a similar ability to see in otherwise random looking objects new properties, arrangements, and applications.

I think you are judging here based on the small scale of his achievement (rolling table, who cares, $50 at Home Depot could make better, right?) but you are failing to consider for the absolute-zero (or close to it) in resources that the guy had at his disposal.

For example an achievement like this: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/09/06/... , in my opinion, has to be amplified in our eyes to compensate for the difference in resources availability in a typical bio-tech-lab in say US, and what was available here.

I think the author was adding a little sensational flair to the title, not trying to make a definitive attestation of their roommate's genius

I never once thought that I was clicking on this post to behold a tale of True Genius. Nor did I expect that OP believed that.

I think the title reflects that semantic sentiment.

(Author here) Thank you for the thoughtful post and rigor. I've really taken time to reflect on this term and what it means. I still come back to `genius` being associated with attitude/approach/decision-making that may yield certain results. In this case, `resourcefulness` applies to his approach while sharp/smart/genius applies to his attitude and approach.

In another way, I find it difficult to deem someone a genius by the results of their actions (i.e. resulting). It's much more about their mindset and decision making process.

Thanks for the reply, FarhadG! I do see how you are applying the term. I get it :) I suppose my reply was a bit pedantic (taking the term "genius" literally) but I do have another thought: I think the word 'ingenious' is a better fit. Check it out:

   ingenious : having or showing an unusual aptitude for discovering, inventing, or contriving an ingenious detective. 2 : marked by originality, resourcefulness, and cleverness in conception or execution an ingenious contraption.

At any rate, I loved the article and I got your point, and I think at the end of the day that's all that matters. I take pride in having people take the time to dissect my writing, it means they read it and that they cared enough to analyze it even if it was just enough to call me a moron, which has happened on occasion!

(Author here) Love that point. Never considered the term `ingenious`

I'm adding a note (as we speak) in the blog post to reflect this.

Oh. Wow. Well, I'm glad I could give you something to ponder on, and thank you for the credit, although not necessary.

On another note, this interaction just made it to my Top 3 Internet Things of The Year :)

I wouldn't even apply the term "creative", honestly. I don't think creativity is necessary to say "I want A, I have B and C, how can A be accomplished with B and C?".

> Perhaps for people who don't have a "hack the world!" mindset, it does appear as genius I suppose.

I'm not sure that's right either. I wonder if instead it might just be a matter of culture, possibly even class. If you grew up always just buying the "right" things and only doing things the "right" way, then maybe you just never learn that a thing's "purpose" is just what it was designed to do, not all that it can do.

> I used old bicycle parts and various bits of metal I had left over from other projects and made her a 3 foot tall T-Rex.

See now this is actually what I'd call "creative", since something was actually created.

It’s called divergent thinking. Creativity is a form of intelligence. RSA Animate on education and changing the paradigm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

> Perhaps for people who don't have a "hack the world!" mindset, it does appear as genius I suppose.

That's just a turn of style.

With that being said perhaps there's something in common between the stereotypes of hackers and genius, and that's not flattering I suppose.

This is the first thing I thought of. This is a very creative and resourceful individual.

To be fair I would be one of those people (am fairly young too) who thinks the word genius/brilliant is thrown around for way too many cases that it isn't accurate to the point that it is losing its impact. People are diluting language through hyperbole or lack of intentional use imho.

It could also be that too many people this kind of thinking is so foreign that it seems like genius/brilliance. I guess it could all be relative. A genius to the general public might be different from say a genius to a group of nuclear physicists.

Better example might would be with LEGO, not everyone who plays LEGO is genius, but you can definitely be creative with what you have

I think 'genius' is a relative term.

Indeed, relativity is paramount.

In my house I was considered a 'genius' for putting Cheetos inside a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com