Do We Overvalue Past Accomplishments

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Now before you attack let me explain. I've noticed a trend where, even when someone does something amazing in any particular field, they get compared to certain "geniuses" of the past. And usually even if they're positive they get "It's almost as good as ____!" I find this an odd practice. Because, while those "geniuses" were in fact quite great, they weren't perfect. And who's to say some of those being compared to them couldn't have done as well, or better, in the same situation.

 

People like Einstein and such who we use their findings/creations to learn new things and advance. It's quite possible others would've discovered the same things, maybe even faster and better than he did, had they been in his time without the fact that we now have access to said findings.

 

This can be said for many fields. Music with Mozart, art with Van Gogh with art, movies with Hitchcock, writing with Shakespeare (I have much to say about this one but moving on), etc etc.

 

Basically I've seen that we often look to those who first discovered/created amazing things as pinnacles of their field and that makes it harder for modern "geniuses" to stand out. But even worse we tend to make it out as if those "pinnacles of their field" are insurmountable.

 

Discuss?

[Toffee.]

Cuz' people always expect far too much, when people are only honestly capable of giving so much.

It's..... Shallow.

[Simping For Hina]

The thing is: They were their first, and what defined what they created.

 

Modern geniuses aren't revolutionary in newfound fields, but are revolutionary in fields that are already mustered. We don't devalue them, but the publicity isn't around properly for geniuses to be compared to titans of fields.

[Thar]

These "geniuses" were only innovative, meaning no one has thought of it before they did. It's not a matter of genius, it's just bringing something new to the table that we all had and still have potential of doing. Be it a new style of music, art, scientific breakthrough, etc., it's not that we're dumb, we're just not thinking about it the right way.

[Aix]

Actually, it is very often that people will discover the same things at almost the same time, but the person who was just slightly faster will get the credit. However, there is little doubt that said people were usually very smart and knew how to use their intelligence (the last part is particularly important). Luck is certainly a factor, but these people did not get there on luck alone.

 

As for whether we overvalue them, maybe. However, accomplishments are usually an undeniable proof of competence, and by lauding these achievements we push people to achieve things. Many would argue that we don't value these people enough, that they should be more important than celebrities and musicians.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

As for whether we overvalue them, maybe. However, accomplishments are usually an undeniable proof of competence, and by lauding these achievements we push people to achieve things. Many would argue that we don't value these people enough, that they should be more important than celebrities and musicians.

Well I mostly mean that we overvalue them compared to people of similar fields but I agree...with the celebrity part. To an extent. Celebrities who get there through just being famous, not some kind of talent.

Musicians and the like, imo, are a different matter because I feel their talent and contributions to society are also important.

 

Anyway interesting stuff so far guys. :3

[Tourmaline]

If you aren't original, you aren't a genius. Advanced minds ought to be advanced.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

If you aren't original, you aren't a genius. Advanced minds ought to be advanced.

However the idea then would be that we very well could have geniuses in our midst who only failed to be known as geniuses because they were born in the wrong time.

[Tourmaline]

However the idea then would be that we very well could have geniuses in our midst who only failed to be known as geniuses because they were born in the wrong time.

Obviously geniuses could fail to be recognized. Most people can't understand genius when they see it.

 

Also, you should consider the Flynn effect I mentioned earlier. Intelligence improves upon every successive generation. A genius is only a genius because they are so above the average.

[Night]

ingenuity is dead, funk the establishment, trump for 2016, something something illuminati 

[Fusion X. Denver]

I don't usually jump to make those comparisons. Taking the accomplishment at face value is all I'd need in qualifying someone as genius or not. 

Thing is, there's always going to be someone better than you at what you do, regardless of the field. But that's okay, that shouldn't undermine your worth. Because you're still awesome at what you do.