Strong belief, strongly & long held: geniuses from the Renaissance to the early XXth century came predominantly from the aristocratic class because they had access to both tutoring and the means to focus on hard problems. I just found this article which articulates the argument convincingly

Strong belief, strongly & long held: geniuses from the Renaissance to the early XXth century came predominantly from the aristocratic class because they had access to both tutoring and the means to focus on hard problems. I just found this article which articulates the argument convincingly https://tinyurl.com/ys9wryjh

Aviator, diver, Etherean, nexialist, PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

No. The concept of a genius is a linguistic change that’s historically-contingent to that time period.

It’s not that geniuses popped up in history and left, it’s that this  particular concept of geniuses popped up in history and is receding.

It’s more a language and conceptual shift than a sociological one.

Writer ✍️ | Creepy stories: unnerv.ing 👁️ | Essays: paragraph.xyz/@driftless ⚡️

Ok, so help me steelman the argument; leave aside the tainted terminology of “genius”. How would you call the people most responsible for breakthrough discoveries in science, and how can we reconcile the apparent paradox of their numbers not increasing in line with demographics, education, & knowledge availability?

I would question that last clause? How do you really know that breakthroughs are not increasing?

Keeping in mind that breakthrough discoveries are rarely immediately apparent. They take time — sometimes a generation or even a century — for the breakthrough to be properly understood as a breakthrough.