Insanity

There are numerous “Eskimo” words for “snow.” It's not an urban legend. It's a fact. Part of the plethora results from the fact that people whose environment is almost always snowy have developed a vocabulary that distinguishes among multiple varieties caused by different conditions – temperature, humidity, and the like. Also important is the fact that their lives are largely governed by the snow and it is important to differentiate the types better suited to sleighs or snowshoe, those requiring different tools for hunting or other tasks, the varieties which determine where particular fauna may be found, etc. (And, in terms of the number of terms, we should not forget that there are many “Eskimo” languages.)

And there are differences among the snow "atoms" as well.  No two snowflakes are alike. That is both the teaching and the science. The snowflake, or snow needle, has a shape that is governed by the way molecules come together at different temperatures and levels of humidity. And with a virtually infinite number of possible arrangements of molecules, no two have ever been the same.

No two people are identical. Even “identical” twins, though their DNA may be matching, display differences. All the moreso when considering individuals with different genetic patterns.

Indeed, no two of anything are identical. “Real” objects, formed from matter, have differences like those of snowflakes based on differing arrangements of molecules. (We may even wonder if all electrons are absolutely identical, and all protons, neutrons, quarks, etc.) The differences may be minor and require complicated instruments to demonstrate, but they are there. And concepts and words, no matter how similar, carry disparate “baggage” in the form of varying nuances. And that makes accurate translation impossible.

In the words of Albert Einstein, “Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It's pithy, and it certainly is a reasonable view. But it's misleading. I don't question either Einstein's knowledge or his wisdom. However, according to Wikipedia – a source which many dispute – “Albert Einstein may have been the first person to carefully point out the radical effect the new quantum physics would have on our notion of physical state. Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an measurements of an observable [occurence]. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.”

That's a fancy way of saying that everything is random – it has a probability but we can never know if two situations are the same. And they're not. No matter what we may think or believe. So if “Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” we should recognize that we're (virtually) never doing the same thing over and over. No matter how it may seem and what we may think.

And I think about it. Often. Every time a problem comes up when I'm using my computer I wonder if I should try again. (If you don't succeed at first, try, try again.) I usually do so, and occasionally it works. If not I follow the wisdom recommended by all the computer mavins: “reboot.”

So I reboot and try again. And most of the time the problem is solved. I've gotten to the point that I expect a different result. Einstein would consider me insane, and perhaps I am, but the system works. I view it as black magic and, while I don't believe in magic, I prefer that to seeing myself as insane. I assume that there is some difference between the situation when I failed and the conditions when I succeeded. The difference may relate to the phase of the moon, to electrical impulses, quantum indeterminacy and randomness, temperature and humidity changes, slight variations between electrons, or evil spirits. I don't know.

And I don't care.

I have to run now. The men in the white coats are coming for me.

Next episode: “Re:” Virtual or hard-copy.

Edison Was Wrong

Last week I quoted Thomas Edison: “None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.”

So far, so good.

However I learned later that the statement was made in a press conference in 1929,ⁱ and was a variant of a statement that he had made around 1902:ⁱⁱ

“Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.”

Whoa.

There's no question that Thomas Edison was bright and insightful.ⁱⁱⁱ And he was certainly hard working. Really hard working. But I'm not convinced he was a genius. Was he a great inventor? Yes. Was he a technological innovator? Yes. Was he a great spokesman and marketer? Unquestionably. But those qualities, by themselves, are not genius.

It's hard to define what a genius is. It certainly can't be defined by IQ, although perhaps the level of intelligence can.^iv But not all bright people are geniuses. Neither can the tag be assigned based on accomplishment. While a genius will usually accomplish great things, that is not invariably the case.^v And, indeed, as I hinted above, great accomplishments may result from a high degree of intelligence accompanied by hard work,^vi but more is needed to be a genius. There is vision in the face of darkness. And the ability to bring light in that darkness – to make others aware of what you have discovered.

An innovator recognizes a need and, by his intelligence and effort, fills it. Edison was such a man. The average individual, may not recognize a problem, but when he does, having accepted its presence, he will either ignore it or give up. One who is bright will find a way to work around it. Only an Edison will devise a real solution for the problem so others will not have to face it or work around it.

But those problems are apparent to most people, whether or not the solutions are. We all see and recognize the areas that need work. There are many disciplines, however, in which we lack comprehension, and we may not be cognizant of our ignorance, or what it is about which we are ignorant. There has to be vision and the ability to provide the light to eliminate that darkness. It takes a genius to see what is invisible to the rest of us, and to recognize the solution when we aren't even aware of the problem; it takes a genius to see the mistakes of the past – a Galileo to confirm and “publicize” the sun's centrality, an Einstein to recognize that Newtonian concepts could not account for all the universe's phenomena. And it took an Abraham to declare the concept of a single G-D and a Moses to promote it.

But these were not popular positions and, to one degree or another, their proponents suffered for them. Since Einstein conceived of his Theories of Relativity, others have tried to poke holes in them. Galileo risked excommunication and death for his beliefs, Abraham had to flee his homeland and Moses was threatened by both Pharaoh and the Israelites for his words and actions. (And, while the idea of monotheism has received approval by billions, those who promoted it, who were to be a “light to the nations,”^vii have been persecuted ever since.) Bringing light in the face of darkness is not an easy task for physicist or philosopher.

How can we recognize genius, or a genius? Most of us can't. We're told by experts that someone is a genius and we have to accept it at face value, since, based on our own intelligence and the education we've received, we can't begin to understand ideas so far beyond us.^viii But we can sometimes recognize the kind of person who is capable of such brilliance.

The average individual, however bright, is not aware that he is in an envelope. He accepts the view that there is no point in “reinventing the wheel.” Those in front of him are blocking his vision if he sees them at all. The innovator is ready to “push the envelope.” He identifies problems with the wheel and devises remedies. He stands “on the shoulders of giants.”

The genius, however, has his mind on bigger things – on matters well past the perceptions of others. He recognizes the errors of the past – errors that the rest of us accept with reverence. He sees visions of physical, artistic, and philosophical realities which are beyond our imagining. He has torn up the envelope and discarded the wheel in the recognition of questions which require completely different solutions.^ix He is the giant on whose shoulders future generations will stand – future generations that will build on the ideas which he has tried to reveal to an unprepared public.

There have certainly been many geniuses who, lacking the tools available to later generations, recognized problems but were unable to solve them. They were viewed as eccentrics and malcontents. It is troubling to know that their gifts have been lost to us. They were ahead of their times. We are the poorer for it.

And there have been geniuses whose insights were too troubling for the establishment to tolerate. Socrates found that out. But, as Socrates demonstrated, from his perspective the views of others are irrelevant.^x

An innovator solves problems and is hailed for it. His work is recognized quickly, even if it is not fully understood by all. Most people aren't interested in carburetor construction as long as the car starts. But a genius often causes problems. He denies what everyone knows, and for that, at least initially, he is vilified. If he is recognized at all. But his sweat has nothing to do with it.

 

Next episode: “Enough Already” – Things have gotten out of hand.

 

i     See Wikiquote.

ii    Reported in Harper's Monthly in 1932 as having been said “ sometime around 1902.”

iii    Or, as Yogi would put it, he was “smarter than the average bear.”

iv    Not everyone will agree with this statement, viewing the tests as biased or otherwise imperfect. This is not the place to debate that issue. Whatever the imperfections, if any, IQ tests have shown themselves to be very helpful in sorting out different levels of intelligence among individuals.

v      A brilliant insight that is not pursued may lead nowhere. Its originator will certainly not be known for it. The genius of the idea will remain unknown as will its possessor, the genius.

vi     As with Edison.

vii    Isaiah, 42:6 and 49:6.

viii   And we resent someone smarter than ourselves. It's like elementary school. No one likes the smart kid. Let's beat him up.

ix    The wheel is not the answer to all problems. Something that most of us don't appreciate.

x     One might argue that Galileo fell down here. Or perhaps, knowing that ultimately he would win out, that his ideas would someday be accepted by everyone, he chose the path of discretion. Whatever his decision about his life, he certainly didn't change his view of the universe.