What do you think?
Rate this book
Dâhilerin Gizli Alışkanlıkları - Yetenek, IQ ve Cesaretin Ötesindeki Sır
“Siz hangisi olmayı tercih edersiniz? Etkili biri mi, yoksa bir dâhi mi? Çoğumuz dâhi olmak ister ancak bunun erişilemez olduğunu düşündüğünden etkili olmakla yetinir. Bu müthiş kitap, dâhilerin gizli alışkanlıklarını ortaya koyarak aslında dehanın her birimizin içinde var olduğunu anlatıyor.”
—Francesca Gino
Da vinci. Shakespeare. Mozart. Beethoven. Edison. Curie. Einstein. Picasso. Jobs. Çoğumuz için “dâhi” kelimesi, katkıları toplumu geri dönülmez şekilde dönüştüren bu ikonik figürleri çağrıştırıyor. Üstelik günümüzde kendi dâhiliğimizden başlayıp dâhi çocuklar yetiştirmeye, IQ testlerinden yetenek geliştirme kurslarına hepimiz dehanın kapılarını zorluyoruz. Ancak Beethoven sayıları toplarken zorlanırdı, çarpma ve bölmeyi ise hiç öğrenmedi. Edison kendisinden bahsederken “Sınıfımın sonuncularındandım,” demişti. Einstein beş kişilik fizik bölümünü dördüncü bitirdi. Picasso alfabedeki harflerin sırasını hatırlayamazdı ve rakamları bir resmi temsil ediyormuş gibi algılardı. Jobs’ın lise not ortalaması 2.65’ti.
Peki, tüm bunlar bugün başarı kriterlerimiz hakkında ne söylüyor? Batı kültürünün dönüştürücü dehaları tam tersini yapmışken çocuklara neden kurallara göre davranmayı ve oynamayı öğretiyoruz? Ve deha nedir gerçekten?
Yale Üniversitesi’nin oldukça popüler “Dehanın Doğasının Keşfi” dersinin yaratıcısı Profesör Craig Wright, çocuksu merakın peşini bırakmamaktan yaratıcı uyumsuzluğa, istikrarlı çalışmadan takıntıya, meselelere bakış açımızdan şansa ve cinsiyetin başarıya etkisine kadar dehanın 14 temel özelliğine eğilerek dünyayı değiştiren parlak beyinlerden neler öğrenebileceğimizi araştırıyor.
Bu kitabı okumak sizi muhtemelen dâhi yapmayacak. Öte yandan, sizi hayatınızı nasıl yönlendirdiğiniz, çocuklarınızı nasıl yetiştirdiğiniz, gittikleri okulları nasıl seçtiğiniz, paranızı ve zamanınızı nasıl kullandığınız, demokratik seçimlerde nasıl oy verdiğiniz, en önemlisi de nasıl yaratıcı olunabileceği hususlarında düşünmeye zorlayacak. Kim bilir belki bu kitabı dikkatli bir şekilde okursanız sizin de dünya görüşünüz değişir…
—Francesca Gino
Da vinci. Shakespeare. Mozart. Beethoven. Edison. Curie. Einstein. Picasso. Jobs. Çoğumuz için “dâhi” kelimesi, katkıları toplumu geri dönülmez şekilde dönüştüren bu ikonik figürleri çağrıştırıyor. Üstelik günümüzde kendi dâhiliğimizden başlayıp dâhi çocuklar yetiştirmeye, IQ testlerinden yetenek geliştirme kurslarına hepimiz dehanın kapılarını zorluyoruz. Ancak Beethoven sayıları toplarken zorlanırdı, çarpma ve bölmeyi ise hiç öğrenmedi. Edison kendisinden bahsederken “Sınıfımın sonuncularındandım,” demişti. Einstein beş kişilik fizik bölümünü dördüncü bitirdi. Picasso alfabedeki harflerin sırasını hatırlayamazdı ve rakamları bir resmi temsil ediyormuş gibi algılardı. Jobs’ın lise not ortalaması 2.65’ti.
Peki, tüm bunlar bugün başarı kriterlerimiz hakkında ne söylüyor? Batı kültürünün dönüştürücü dehaları tam tersini yapmışken çocuklara neden kurallara göre davranmayı ve oynamayı öğretiyoruz? Ve deha nedir gerçekten?
Yale Üniversitesi’nin oldukça popüler “Dehanın Doğasının Keşfi” dersinin yaratıcısı Profesör Craig Wright, çocuksu merakın peşini bırakmamaktan yaratıcı uyumsuzluğa, istikrarlı çalışmadan takıntıya, meselelere bakış açımızdan şansa ve cinsiyetin başarıya etkisine kadar dehanın 14 temel özelliğine eğilerek dünyayı değiştiren parlak beyinlerden neler öğrenebileceğimizi araştırıyor.
Bu kitabı okumak sizi muhtemelen dâhi yapmayacak. Öte yandan, sizi hayatınızı nasıl yönlendirdiğiniz, çocuklarınızı nasıl yetiştirdiğiniz, gittikleri okulları nasıl seçtiğiniz, paranızı ve zamanınızı nasıl kullandığınız, demokratik seçimlerde nasıl oy verdiğiniz, en önemlisi de nasıl yaratıcı olunabileceği hususlarında düşünmeye zorlayacak. Kim bilir belki bu kitabı dikkatli bir şekilde okursanız sizin de dünya görüşünüz değişir…
336 pages, Paperback
First published October 9, 2020
612 people are currently reading
4488 people want to read
About the author
Craig Wright
118 books46 followersCraig Milton Wright (born in 1944 in Fort Sill, Okla.) is the Henry L. and Lucy G. Moses Professor Emeritus of Music at Yale University.
He specialises in music history.
Librarian note: There are multiple authors with this name in this data base. This one is Craig^Wright.
He specialises in music history.
Librarian note: There are multiple authors with this name in this data base. This one is Craig^Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews
February 4, 2024
I found this book to be exceedingly trivial. It’s really a glorified self-help book that is nothing more than a gloss on the biographies of the extraordinary figures discussed in its pages.
The biggest problem I had with the book is the extent to which it engages in hero-worship of contemporary business figures. The author constantly interrupts himself to deliver irrelevant quotations from Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other modern-day billionaires/trillionaires he deems geniuses equivalent to great artists or figures who have changed the course of human history.
I can’t really exaggerate how prevalent this is throughout the entire book. Even at times when I was interested in Wright’s discussion of the accomplishments of da Vinci, Shakespeare, or Marie Curie, he would cut off these threads of interest by imposing the quotations of Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Musk. This happens almost without fail, and with the insistent regularity of advertisement.
I think the idiosyncratic jumbling of historical figures with contemporary ones is part of the draw of this book; after all, it’s provocative to place Kanye West and Lady Gaga in the esteemed company of Benjamin Franklin and Ludwig von Beethoven. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a gimmick that makes the book more superficial instead of widening our understanding of what makes a genius. They function as a grab-bag of quotes for the author to sprinkle among the pages to bolster his self-help platitudes (e.g. “think differently”, “think backwards”, etc).
The author confuses wealth and business acumen with genius. Even his discussion of art is corrupted by this. When he looks at a Picasso there is no discussion of art because he can’t see past the prestige granted by the dollar signs attached to it. The artists Wright graces with the title of genius are often there because of how many works they sold (J.K. Rowling, etc).
I found his definition of genius to be both too inclusive and too narrow. He only grants the title to those who have made a mark on the world, but the morality or humanism of their impact remains unexamined. Taking an example from Wright, a genius born on a deserted island is not a genius, but Jeff Bezos is because he has managed to siphon trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth into his own pockets (obviously the pejorative way of speaking about Bezos is my own). Wright does attempt to get out of this in the third-to-last chapter by offering a moral condemnation of the monstrosity of particular geniuses; unfortunately this comes off as more gossipy than elucidating, and the conclusion that morality and genius are independent variables is probably the least interesting way to view this topic.
This also contradicts the book’s conclusion, which states “almost no one loves the genius until he or she is dead. But then we do, because now life is better.”
There are a lot of problems with this categorical statement aside from the way it contradicts what came before, and a moment’s thought will reveal these: is the world a better place now that we have the atomic bomb? Clearly not. Is “life better” now that the “genius” Mark Zuckerberg’s company has subverted democratic regimes across the world? You get the picture.
Dr. Wright is the Professor Emeritus of Music at Yale, and I think this would have been a much stronger book if he had focused on musical genius specifically. Perhaps in an attempt to appeal to a wide audience, he doesn’t dwell on this topic or do any real exploration about what makes musical genius, aside from providing biographical details and drawing a distinction between a genius (who creates) and a prodigy (who does not).
We return to the past for many reasons, but my own personal reason is to try and grab onto something that’s outside the all-encompassing metaphysics of our time: our obsession with wealth, our inability to craft identities apart from our habits of consumption, our compulsive need to produce and churn out "content" into the world regardless of its quality, our hubristic belief that technology and positive thinking can save us from the consequences of our pathological manipulation and destruction of the natural world, etc. This book does not offer even a glimmer of that. It is decidedly within our own metaphysics, and fails to help us to see how to “think differently” or even imagine how to conceive the world in any other way. Michelangelo certainly didn’t view the meaning of life and the purpose of art like Henry Ford, so why impose that metaphysics onto him? We cannot learn anything from Henry Ford, because we are already so deeply within the world created by his way of thinking.
I didn’t learn anything from this book, not because I’m an expert on the figures herein, but because this form of thinking has nothing left to teach us.
The biggest problem I had with the book is the extent to which it engages in hero-worship of contemporary business figures. The author constantly interrupts himself to deliver irrelevant quotations from Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other modern-day billionaires/trillionaires he deems geniuses equivalent to great artists or figures who have changed the course of human history.
I can’t really exaggerate how prevalent this is throughout the entire book. Even at times when I was interested in Wright’s discussion of the accomplishments of da Vinci, Shakespeare, or Marie Curie, he would cut off these threads of interest by imposing the quotations of Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Musk. This happens almost without fail, and with the insistent regularity of advertisement.
I think the idiosyncratic jumbling of historical figures with contemporary ones is part of the draw of this book; after all, it’s provocative to place Kanye West and Lady Gaga in the esteemed company of Benjamin Franklin and Ludwig von Beethoven. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a gimmick that makes the book more superficial instead of widening our understanding of what makes a genius. They function as a grab-bag of quotes for the author to sprinkle among the pages to bolster his self-help platitudes (e.g. “think differently”, “think backwards”, etc).
The author confuses wealth and business acumen with genius. Even his discussion of art is corrupted by this. When he looks at a Picasso there is no discussion of art because he can’t see past the prestige granted by the dollar signs attached to it. The artists Wright graces with the title of genius are often there because of how many works they sold (J.K. Rowling, etc).
I found his definition of genius to be both too inclusive and too narrow. He only grants the title to those who have made a mark on the world, but the morality or humanism of their impact remains unexamined. Taking an example from Wright, a genius born on a deserted island is not a genius, but Jeff Bezos is because he has managed to siphon trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth into his own pockets (obviously the pejorative way of speaking about Bezos is my own). Wright does attempt to get out of this in the third-to-last chapter by offering a moral condemnation of the monstrosity of particular geniuses; unfortunately this comes off as more gossipy than elucidating, and the conclusion that morality and genius are independent variables is probably the least interesting way to view this topic.
This also contradicts the book’s conclusion, which states “almost no one loves the genius until he or she is dead. But then we do, because now life is better.”
There are a lot of problems with this categorical statement aside from the way it contradicts what came before, and a moment’s thought will reveal these: is the world a better place now that we have the atomic bomb? Clearly not. Is “life better” now that the “genius” Mark Zuckerberg’s company has subverted democratic regimes across the world? You get the picture.
Dr. Wright is the Professor Emeritus of Music at Yale, and I think this would have been a much stronger book if he had focused on musical genius specifically. Perhaps in an attempt to appeal to a wide audience, he doesn’t dwell on this topic or do any real exploration about what makes musical genius, aside from providing biographical details and drawing a distinction between a genius (who creates) and a prodigy (who does not).
We return to the past for many reasons, but my own personal reason is to try and grab onto something that’s outside the all-encompassing metaphysics of our time: our obsession with wealth, our inability to craft identities apart from our habits of consumption, our compulsive need to produce and churn out "content" into the world regardless of its quality, our hubristic belief that technology and positive thinking can save us from the consequences of our pathological manipulation and destruction of the natural world, etc. This book does not offer even a glimmer of that. It is decidedly within our own metaphysics, and fails to help us to see how to “think differently” or even imagine how to conceive the world in any other way. Michelangelo certainly didn’t view the meaning of life and the purpose of art like Henry Ford, so why impose that metaphysics onto him? We cannot learn anything from Henry Ford, because we are already so deeply within the world created by his way of thinking.
I didn’t learn anything from this book, not because I’m an expert on the figures herein, but because this form of thinking has nothing left to teach us.
July 9, 2020
This sneak peek into a Yale class headed by the author deftly compares Stephen Hawking to Kanye West, Steve Jobs to Marie Curie, and Van Gogh to Oprah without seeming absurd. Whether you are a genius, a wannabe-genius, or simply a curious reader, you will find something to take away from Craig Wright's blending of historical fact and modern-day applications. Falling just short of a motivational-speech-slash-self-help-book, you will find enough "this is how to become a genius" tidbits if you look for them. However, the author does not shy from telling you directly that some people just don't have what it takes, and why.
It's not 200+ pages of hero worship; far from it. He unapologetically calls out history's geniuses for their often glaring character flaws. He objectively states each genius's contributions to society without emotional reaction or personal opinion. He staunchly defends women geniuses throughout history and laments their historical treatment. Although in at least one example, he demonstrates that while he supports women taking prominent roles in the future, he does not empathize or put himself in a woman's shoes (figuratively speaking). I would love to have the chance to sit down with him and share some much-need perspective!
All in all, I enjoyed The Hidden Habits of Genius, and would happily recommend it to college students, parents, and retirees alike. I was able to read an advance ebook copy, so keep an eye out for it on October 6, 2020!
Rating: ★★★★☆ (4/5)
It's not 200+ pages of hero worship; far from it. He unapologetically calls out history's geniuses for their often glaring character flaws. He objectively states each genius's contributions to society without emotional reaction or personal opinion. He staunchly defends women geniuses throughout history and laments their historical treatment. Although in at least one example, he demonstrates that while he supports women taking prominent roles in the future, he does not empathize or put himself in a woman's shoes (figuratively speaking). I would love to have the chance to sit down with him and share some much-need perspective!
All in all, I enjoyed The Hidden Habits of Genius, and would happily recommend it to college students, parents, and retirees alike. I was able to read an advance ebook copy, so keep an eye out for it on October 6, 2020!
Rating: ★★★★☆ (4/5)
January 8, 2023
3.5 stars. An interesting read providing a definition on what makes a genius and the habits shared by many of these geniuses.
In other words, a genius is not someone who is the best at something, but someone that changes the world through original thinking.
I liked the author's formula for defining whether someone is a genius: G = S x N x D (Genius = Significance x Number of people impacted x Duration), and although I enjoyed reading about the hidden habits none of them were very unexpected. I did however love all the interesting stories about some of the people used as examples like Mary Shelley, Marie Curie, Martin Luther, Ben Franklin, Alexander Fleming, Vincent van Gogh, Einstein, Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci.
“Some of us can hit a target that we see, but the genius hits a target that no one else can see.”
In other words, a genius is not someone who is the best at something, but someone that changes the world through original thinking.
I liked the author's formula for defining whether someone is a genius: G = S x N x D (Genius = Significance x Number of people impacted x Duration), and although I enjoyed reading about the hidden habits none of them were very unexpected. I did however love all the interesting stories about some of the people used as examples like Mary Shelley, Marie Curie, Martin Luther, Ben Franklin, Alexander Fleming, Vincent van Gogh, Einstein, Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci.
May 1, 2021
1. Why did I read this?
I took this book for a weekend read and relax. I was curious to see, what a Yale Professor has to say about Genius.
2. What happened during my reading?
I learnt new things about famous people.
I laughed many times with examples.
I learnt new things about famous people.
Maybe your sense of humor might be contrasting to me.
3. What's my own thoughts on this?
My own thought on Genius means -- Original thinking.
It seems definitions for Geniuses, change over generations.
He brings many examples, I share few of them that I like.
Professor Craig says about a famous statistician, Francis Galton.
He says, Galton was wrong on his work of hereditary genius.
Professor Craig says, “You can’t create a super horse or gifted race of men by selective breading.”
He says, talent maybe heritable but genius cannot be created.
Genius does not come from exceptional parents.
4. What's my qualms with this?
My only qualm on the above is one historical example.
The greatest American theologian -- Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards was a profound thinker, writer with depth thoughts.
He had an extraordinary lineage - How?
In his lineage, Edwards had produced accomplished generation.
Many clergymen for generations.
About thirteen presidents of higher learning, but now, changed into fourteen (2021) (Drew Faust)
The contemporary last one in Edward's lineage - Drew Gilpin Faust. Faust was, president of Harvard.
Sixty-five Professors, and many other persons of notable achievements -- How?
Oh, maybe I can inject non-scientific explanation, “God blessed his generation.” How simple?
I understand, Naturalists won’t agree with the above explanation.
5. What else does he say?
Let's get to most famous example, Charles Darwin.
Charles Darwin’s early academic was poor.
His Father thought he was a disgrace to his family.
Darwin flunked Medical school, transferred and gambled, drank, partied.
Leaving all that behind, he embarked on his famous Beagle.
I like the following from the book —
“Darwin had been born with a love for Nature.
He had also developed a desire to prove himself the equal of the scientific superiors.
Many of them, he had failed to impress at Edinburgh and Cambridge.
He also failed to please possibly of his father as well."
6. What other examples are inside?
a) Steve Jobs -- People comment that he treated many like dirt. Would you want to be treated like dirty? Possibly not, no thanks!
He had 2.65 GPA. It didn't matter when he made gazillions.
b) Jack Ma, famous Chinese billionaire. He had got 19/120 on Math exam.
What matters is not the school, but what is inside of you.
c) John Stuart Mill, famous utilitarian says “Happiness is something that happens to us while we are pursuing some other purpose.”
As people frequently talk about happiness in life, I remember this.
Apparently, I sent this quote to a Cardiologist in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu (India)
7. What more does he say?
The author says, Don’t over-regulate children.
Let them break the rules. Let children explore, take risks, experience failure.
Be a fox, roam around in curiosity, sometimes that doesn’t have self-restraint.
A Polymath is one who can combine disparate things to create
In my Goodreads profile, I've written - aspiring Polymath. It's a lofty ambition, slowly progressing.
8. How much time does this take?
If you are an avid reader - 3-4 hours.
I would recommend this to everyone.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
I took this book for a weekend read and relax. I was curious to see, what a Yale Professor has to say about Genius.
2. What happened during my reading?
I learnt new things about famous people.
I laughed many times with examples.
I learnt new things about famous people.
Maybe your sense of humor might be contrasting to me.
3. What's my own thoughts on this?
My own thought on Genius means -- Original thinking.
It seems definitions for Geniuses, change over generations.
He brings many examples, I share few of them that I like.
Professor Craig says about a famous statistician, Francis Galton.
He says, Galton was wrong on his work of hereditary genius.
Professor Craig says, “You can’t create a super horse or gifted race of men by selective breading.”
He says, talent maybe heritable but genius cannot be created.
Genius does not come from exceptional parents.
4. What's my qualms with this?
My only qualm on the above is one historical example.
The greatest American theologian -- Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards was a profound thinker, writer with depth thoughts.
He had an extraordinary lineage - How?
In his lineage, Edwards had produced accomplished generation.
Many clergymen for generations.
About thirteen presidents of higher learning, but now, changed into fourteen (2021) (Drew Faust)
The contemporary last one in Edward's lineage - Drew Gilpin Faust. Faust was, president of Harvard.
Sixty-five Professors, and many other persons of notable achievements -- How?
Oh, maybe I can inject non-scientific explanation, “God blessed his generation.” How simple?
I understand, Naturalists won’t agree with the above explanation.
5. What else does he say?
Let's get to most famous example, Charles Darwin.
Charles Darwin’s early academic was poor.
His Father thought he was a disgrace to his family.
Darwin flunked Medical school, transferred and gambled, drank, partied.
Leaving all that behind, he embarked on his famous Beagle.
I like the following from the book —
“Darwin had been born with a love for Nature.
He had also developed a desire to prove himself the equal of the scientific superiors.
Many of them, he had failed to impress at Edinburgh and Cambridge.
He also failed to please possibly of his father as well."
6. What other examples are inside?
a) Steve Jobs -- People comment that he treated many like dirt. Would you want to be treated like dirty? Possibly not, no thanks!
He had 2.65 GPA. It didn't matter when he made gazillions.
b) Jack Ma, famous Chinese billionaire. He had got 19/120 on Math exam.
What matters is not the school, but what is inside of you.
c) John Stuart Mill, famous utilitarian says “Happiness is something that happens to us while we are pursuing some other purpose.”
As people frequently talk about happiness in life, I remember this.
Apparently, I sent this quote to a Cardiologist in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu (India)
7. What more does he say?
The author says, Don’t over-regulate children.
Let them break the rules. Let children explore, take risks, experience failure.
Be a fox, roam around in curiosity, sometimes that doesn’t have self-restraint.
A Polymath is one who can combine disparate things to create
In my Goodreads profile, I've written - aspiring Polymath. It's a lofty ambition, slowly progressing.
8. How much time does this take?
If you are an avid reader - 3-4 hours.
I would recommend this to everyone.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
January 3, 2023
As in his online classical music course, Wright garnishes this book with anecdotes and letter excerpts, which make for interesting reading. However, the book seems at odds with itself. On the one hand it points to only the most widely recognized geniuses: Einstein, Mozart, Van Gogh (and then, puzzlingly, a small batch of present day billionaires), and then from this small set of data points tries to extrapolate just as many "habits" that anyone could apply. But if there are so few geniuses, then wouldn't looking e.g. at a broader set of great physicists (beyond Einstein, Hawking, Newton), lend more support to what people should do to accomplish "more" in e.g. physics (novel accomplishment is the main criterion used to distinguish genius from non-genius according to Wright).
I wish the book had gone more in-depth on what genius is (beyond flitting around across centuries and briefly mentioning well-known inventors and artists) and especially what genius looks like today beyond building tech business or writing Harry Potter. Or otherwise, if it had gone more in-depth into the hidden habits of merely great artists, physicists, writers, etc.
I wish the book had gone more in-depth on what genius is (beyond flitting around across centuries and briefly mentioning well-known inventors and artists) and especially what genius looks like today beyond building tech business or writing Harry Potter. Or otherwise, if it had gone more in-depth into the hidden habits of merely great artists, physicists, writers, etc.
July 27, 2020
What is Genius? Is a genius born or created? Can you become a “genius”? The term “genius” conjures up someone who has a high IQ and aces standardized tests, a stereotypical image you may say. And you would be right. Darwin dropped out of the medical program at the University of Edinburgh in 1827. When he attended the University of Cambridge the next year, his major appears to have been drinking and gambling along with hunting and shooting.
Although you may not “unlock the secrets of greatness” as written in the subtitle to this book as you read, you will find great stories behind many of the men and women who we consider “geniuses” today. It may be impossible to predict who will become a genius but you will find clues as to what personality types turn up as “geniuses”.
Although you may not “unlock the secrets of greatness” as written in the subtitle to this book as you read, you will find great stories behind many of the men and women who we consider “geniuses” today. It may be impossible to predict who will become a genius but you will find clues as to what personality types turn up as “geniuses”.
March 31, 2021
This book doesn’t give you a road map to become a genius because, let’s face it, you’re probably not. But it does help to explain some of the common traits found in geniuses across many disciplines, from writers to painters to composers to inventors to the gods of tech. Spoiler: most of them were assholes. Undeniably, they changed the course of our lives, usually for the better, but they were frequently narcissistic, self-centered, abusive, and obsessive. Not exactly the people you want at your next dinner party. It’s almost like the people closest to geniuses were sacrificed so the rest of us could benefit. I learned a lot about people I’ve always admired, but I’m torn over the takeaways. I’ve long struggled to find ways to appreciate the gifts of genius while simultaneously despising the creator, and I don’t feel I’m on any stronger footing after having read this book. Still, it’s an interesting read that I would recommend to anyone, and the conversational style of the author makes it accessible and easily digestible.
January 25, 2023
TLDR: Of the more than 20 books on talent and geniuses that I’ve read, this is the worst and wrong on so many levels.
The most important line is on the very last page of the book, “Yet for those so abused, made redundant, exploited, or ignored, we offer sincere thanks for ‘taking one for the team’. The team being all of us who benefit from the greater cultural good that your genius has done.”
Let me translate.
Thanks wives, lovers, and children of abusive ‘geniuses’!
Your exploitation was totally worth it since now I can read ‘The Old Man and the Sea’ on my iPad with a ‘guernica’ background which is so much more important than your emotional, physical, and mental well-being.
Go humanity!
Maybe an author with a conscience would have instead said, “We as a society should stop idolizing these sociopaths. If you have or are currently subject to these types of abuses get help and expose them for the evil human beings that they are.”
Look, we all make mistakes.
But I don’t berate my direct reports or drag my wife around by her hair or ignore my children.
Neither should anyone else!
To be clear, I’m NOT suggesting any of these ‘geniuses’ should be canceled or their contributions to society be ignored. They’ve made significant, important, valuable contributions.
However, they should also be exposed for the monsters they were so the next generation of geniuses don’t think this is just par for the course.
Wright’s blatant hypocrisy in suggesting women have been held back from becoming geniuses while tacitly supporting abusing women is disturbing.
The author is jokingly perpetuating evil while playing lip service to advocating for women.
Full review:
If you want to understand genius, I’d recommend the following 5 books instead:
Peak - by Anders Ericsson - 3 of Ericsson’s studies are cited but not this book.
The Mindset - Carol Dweck is not cited in his research which is ironic since he dedicates an entire chapter to women getting excluded from genius lists. Then he excludes research from possibly the most influential and important psychologist of the last 20 years.
The Sports Gene - David Epstein - He did reference Epstein’s other book, Range.
The Talent Code - Daniel Coyle - Not referenced.
Deep Work - Cal Newport - Not referenced.
What did he get right?
IQ’s, academic performance, and standardized tests don’t predict anything.
You have to work hard no matter how smart you are.
You need distraction-free time to think and moderate exercise helps.
You have to love to learn. (Though he never makes a good explanation of how to cultivate this love.)
You have to break the rules, not follow them. (This is sort of true. You always have to follow the rules of science but sometimes break the rules of the current cultural mindset.)
You need a wide array of knowledge and experience. David Epstein does a great job of explaining this in Range.
What did he get wrong?
Prodigies don’t exist. Anders Ericsson proves this in his book Peak by studying over 260 alleged prodigies. ALL of them spent 1,000’s if not 10’s of thousands of hours honing their craft. They just started doing so at a young age - Mozart started at 3, Jon Hess at 5, Bobby Fischer took 9 years to become a chess grandmaster, etc.
Chess grandmasters don’t have photographic memories. They just develop mental representations for their sport. They can’t remember randomly placed pieces on a chess board any better than an average person. Reference Peak.
Not all geniuses are terrible people. More importantly NONE of them needed to be terrible people to also be geniuses. It’s unclear if because of point his anti-relgion bias he avoided many of the greatest geniuses in history because they were Catholic.
For instance, Mother Teresa was likely the greatest humanitarian and a massively influential person who changed how millions saw and treated the poor. Clearly, she was a loving, moral person.
It’s hard to believe that any list of geniuses wouldn’t even mention St. Thomas Aquinas. (If you aren’t familiar with him, try to read the Summa Theologica - it’s way deeper than anything DaVinci or Newton ever produced and those guys make my list of top 5 greatest minds in history.)
He was the greatest force in marrying together the Greek philosophers (Aristotle and Plato) with Christian philosophy and his 5 proofs for God directly lead to scientific theories like the Big Bang, 700 years after his death.
He is either completely ignorant of Catholic teaching and history or is simply an anti-Catholic bigot. The heliocentric (sun-centered) universe theory was never, “heresy.” This is an easily provable statement. Just point out where in Canon Law it was ever stated that it was heretical to claim anything but the earth was the center of the universe.
Moreover, Cardinal Bellarmine offered to fund Galileo’s research which made sense because the Catholic Church was the greatest financier for astronomy in the world for about 600 years.
The church had no issue with the heliocentric theory on religious terms. They had an issue with Galileo claiming his theory was a scientific fact. It was not proven a fact until Johannes Kepler did the math.
Galileo died with full Catholic rites which means he remained in full communion with the Catholic Church. His own daughter was a Catholic nun. Would you become a nun if you felt an abusive Church unfairly treated your father?
What about Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and a Catholic priest? Clearly he was a genius with massive contributions to society and a holy person. Was he specifically not mentioned because he wasn’t a terrible person or because he was a Catholic priest?
What about the creator of The Big Bang theory, another genius and Catholic Priest, Father Georges Lemaitre?
The author should read, “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods
He didn’t mention many of the most influential people in history. Namely, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Gandhi, or Confucius. Why not?
The lone religious figure he mentions as possibly the greatest influence in modern history is Martin Luther. Then he completely ignores Luther’s anti-semitism in his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” or that Luther encouraged (and later took credit for) the slaughter of 50,000 peasants in his book, “Against the Murderous and Robbing Hordes of the Peasants (1525)”. One of his brilliant, scholarly statements about the peasants, “They must be sliced, choked, stabbed, secretly and publicly, by those who can, like one must kill a rabid dog.” Is it a stretch to suggest that would be like mentioning Hitler was a genius while not mentioning the holocaust?
The most important line is on the very last page of the book, “Yet for those so abused, made redundant, exploited, or ignored, we offer sincere thanks for ‘taking one for the team’. The team being all of us who benefit from the greater cultural good that your genius has done.”
Let me translate.
Thanks wives, lovers, and children of abusive ‘geniuses’!
Your exploitation was totally worth it since now I can read ‘The Old Man and the Sea’ on my iPad with a ‘guernica’ background which is so much more important than your emotional, physical, and mental well-being.
Go humanity!
Maybe an author with a conscience would have instead said, “We as a society should stop idolizing these sociopaths. If you have or are currently subject to these types of abuses get help and expose them for the evil human beings that they are.”
Look, we all make mistakes.
But I don’t berate my direct reports or drag my wife around by her hair or ignore my children.
Neither should anyone else!
To be clear, I’m NOT suggesting any of these ‘geniuses’ should be canceled or their contributions to society be ignored. They’ve made significant, important, valuable contributions.
However, they should also be exposed for the monsters they were so the next generation of geniuses don’t think this is just par for the course.
Wright’s blatant hypocrisy in suggesting women have been held back from becoming geniuses while tacitly supporting abusing women is disturbing.
The author is jokingly perpetuating evil while playing lip service to advocating for women.
Full review:
If you want to understand genius, I’d recommend the following 5 books instead:
Peak - by Anders Ericsson - 3 of Ericsson’s studies are cited but not this book.
The Mindset - Carol Dweck is not cited in his research which is ironic since he dedicates an entire chapter to women getting excluded from genius lists. Then he excludes research from possibly the most influential and important psychologist of the last 20 years.
The Sports Gene - David Epstein - He did reference Epstein’s other book, Range.
The Talent Code - Daniel Coyle - Not referenced.
Deep Work - Cal Newport - Not referenced.
What did he get right?
IQ’s, academic performance, and standardized tests don’t predict anything.
You have to work hard no matter how smart you are.
You need distraction-free time to think and moderate exercise helps.
You have to love to learn. (Though he never makes a good explanation of how to cultivate this love.)
You have to break the rules, not follow them. (This is sort of true. You always have to follow the rules of science but sometimes break the rules of the current cultural mindset.)
You need a wide array of knowledge and experience. David Epstein does a great job of explaining this in Range.
What did he get wrong?
Prodigies don’t exist. Anders Ericsson proves this in his book Peak by studying over 260 alleged prodigies. ALL of them spent 1,000’s if not 10’s of thousands of hours honing their craft. They just started doing so at a young age - Mozart started at 3, Jon Hess at 5, Bobby Fischer took 9 years to become a chess grandmaster, etc.
Chess grandmasters don’t have photographic memories. They just develop mental representations for their sport. They can’t remember randomly placed pieces on a chess board any better than an average person. Reference Peak.
Not all geniuses are terrible people. More importantly NONE of them needed to be terrible people to also be geniuses. It’s unclear if because of point his anti-relgion bias he avoided many of the greatest geniuses in history because they were Catholic.
For instance, Mother Teresa was likely the greatest humanitarian and a massively influential person who changed how millions saw and treated the poor. Clearly, she was a loving, moral person.
It’s hard to believe that any list of geniuses wouldn’t even mention St. Thomas Aquinas. (If you aren’t familiar with him, try to read the Summa Theologica - it’s way deeper than anything DaVinci or Newton ever produced and those guys make my list of top 5 greatest minds in history.)
He was the greatest force in marrying together the Greek philosophers (Aristotle and Plato) with Christian philosophy and his 5 proofs for God directly lead to scientific theories like the Big Bang, 700 years after his death.
He is either completely ignorant of Catholic teaching and history or is simply an anti-Catholic bigot. The heliocentric (sun-centered) universe theory was never, “heresy.” This is an easily provable statement. Just point out where in Canon Law it was ever stated that it was heretical to claim anything but the earth was the center of the universe.
Moreover, Cardinal Bellarmine offered to fund Galileo’s research which made sense because the Catholic Church was the greatest financier for astronomy in the world for about 600 years.
The church had no issue with the heliocentric theory on religious terms. They had an issue with Galileo claiming his theory was a scientific fact. It was not proven a fact until Johannes Kepler did the math.
Galileo died with full Catholic rites which means he remained in full communion with the Catholic Church. His own daughter was a Catholic nun. Would you become a nun if you felt an abusive Church unfairly treated your father?
What about Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and a Catholic priest? Clearly he was a genius with massive contributions to society and a holy person. Was he specifically not mentioned because he wasn’t a terrible person or because he was a Catholic priest?
What about the creator of The Big Bang theory, another genius and Catholic Priest, Father Georges Lemaitre?
The author should read, “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods
He didn’t mention many of the most influential people in history. Namely, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Gandhi, or Confucius. Why not?
The lone religious figure he mentions as possibly the greatest influence in modern history is Martin Luther. Then he completely ignores Luther’s anti-semitism in his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” or that Luther encouraged (and later took credit for) the slaughter of 50,000 peasants in his book, “Against the Murderous and Robbing Hordes of the Peasants (1525)”. One of his brilliant, scholarly statements about the peasants, “They must be sliced, choked, stabbed, secretly and publicly, by those who can, like one must kill a rabid dog.” Is it a stretch to suggest that would be like mentioning Hitler was a genius while not mentioning the holocaust?
January 29, 2023
This is the type of book you want to devour slowly. I sure did take my time with this, I started reading it in November 2022 and finished it at the end of January 2023.
I took notes thoroughly and slowly and reflected on each of the relevant takeaways. It really does talk about the individual habits of several of the best-known Geniuses out there. It gives you a definition of genius that is unlike anyone I have ever heard before. And it makes total sense after reading it.
Also, while reading through this book I experimented with a new style of note-taking I'm going to have to go back through the front cover of the book where I took all my notes in my own words and transfer them to my second brain. I also plan on uploading maybe an updated review of this book after transferring my notes and getting a chance to reflect further on the takeaways of this book.
So if I do end up doing this and posting something on Goodreads, do stay tuned for that. If not on Goodreads then I may create a video about it on YouTube or at least upload Snippets of it elsewhere on Instagram or Twitter.
I took notes thoroughly and slowly and reflected on each of the relevant takeaways. It really does talk about the individual habits of several of the best-known Geniuses out there. It gives you a definition of genius that is unlike anyone I have ever heard before. And it makes total sense after reading it.
Also, while reading through this book I experimented with a new style of note-taking I'm going to have to go back through the front cover of the book where I took all my notes in my own words and transfer them to my second brain. I also plan on uploading maybe an updated review of this book after transferring my notes and getting a chance to reflect further on the takeaways of this book.
So if I do end up doing this and posting something on Goodreads, do stay tuned for that. If not on Goodreads then I may create a video about it on YouTube or at least upload Snippets of it elsewhere on Instagram or Twitter.
October 16, 2020
Any book that dissects the genius of Kanye West gets 5 stars from me
April 14, 2021
Reliance on anecdotal accounts of successful people makes me think that the sample considered for the research is flawed. The author takes genius people and demonstrates that they have most of the 14 habits listed in the book. Good. But what I end up wondering is, how many people in the history of the world would there be who had all or most of these 14 habits but who failed to leave a mark on the society? If we had those numbers, I'd be far more inclined to recommend this book. In their absence, I am left wondering if I am being fooled by randomness.
November 20, 2020
I enjoyed this book. Craig Wright provides an interesting exploration of a handful of well known geniuses throughout the years and some of the commonalities that tie them all together. The book makes you consider a lot of different aspect of life such as whether genius is a combination of right place right time mixed with hard work, luck and fortuitous circumstances of birth.
As for my critiques of this book I would say that for being the hidden habits of genius this book really makes the reader focus hard for lessons to be learned from each chapter unlike a book like Atomic Habits which really drills them into the readers head. The book also only focuses in on a handful of geniuses, artists, musicians, scientists, and business men. Although the author mentions how people like Simone Biles could be a genius, there isn't much expounding upon that in later chapters mainly because it doesn't quite fit. So it seems to lack a little bit of inclusion from other art mediums like film or people who venture into multiple forms of art like Donald Glover. Another critique I would levy at this book is that the book tries to make large generalizations about geniuses but only providing a handful of famous examples like Einstein, Mozart, Picasso, Curie, Jobs, and DaVinci. I am quite familiar with many of these geniuses having read some of the works of Walter Isaacson so what I really got was a lot of generalizations from a small sample size without studying as many research studies as I would prefer and telling many anecdotes I was already familiar with. Lastly, the chapter about thinking opposite was certainly the weakest with a series of weak points, loosely connected ideas, and logical stretches.
However I didn't dislike this book, it was well written and held my attention throughout. I think I found the discussion interesting, enjoyed the anecdotes about each genius' lives and what we can learn from each. It made me think a lot and while I learned only a moderate amount from it, the through provoking discussion in the book really gave me a lot to think about.
I would recommend this book if you're interested in a little bit of self-improvement, lives of great people who had large impacts, and interesting explorations of intelligence. I'd give this a strong 6 or 7 out of 10.
As for my critiques of this book I would say that for being the hidden habits of genius this book really makes the reader focus hard for lessons to be learned from each chapter unlike a book like Atomic Habits which really drills them into the readers head. The book also only focuses in on a handful of geniuses, artists, musicians, scientists, and business men. Although the author mentions how people like Simone Biles could be a genius, there isn't much expounding upon that in later chapters mainly because it doesn't quite fit. So it seems to lack a little bit of inclusion from other art mediums like film or people who venture into multiple forms of art like Donald Glover. Another critique I would levy at this book is that the book tries to make large generalizations about geniuses but only providing a handful of famous examples like Einstein, Mozart, Picasso, Curie, Jobs, and DaVinci. I am quite familiar with many of these geniuses having read some of the works of Walter Isaacson so what I really got was a lot of generalizations from a small sample size without studying as many research studies as I would prefer and telling many anecdotes I was already familiar with. Lastly, the chapter about thinking opposite was certainly the weakest with a series of weak points, loosely connected ideas, and logical stretches.
However I didn't dislike this book, it was well written and held my attention throughout. I think I found the discussion interesting, enjoyed the anecdotes about each genius' lives and what we can learn from each. It made me think a lot and while I learned only a moderate amount from it, the through provoking discussion in the book really gave me a lot to think about.
I would recommend this book if you're interested in a little bit of self-improvement, lives of great people who had large impacts, and interesting explorations of intelligence. I'd give this a strong 6 or 7 out of 10.
March 24, 2021
Good book !
As the title suggests " the hidden habits of genius " , the habits are not very hidden as such . The title is what we call it in today's world a "click-bait". Book focuses on the author's description of genius , and the epitomes . It then develops a generalization of the habits and the patterns amongst them . divided into 14 chapters ,few were dull , few were interesting , the latter did enhance my perspective towards the ideologies of these epitomes . Thus giving a distinction between the art and and the Artist .
With pages full of quotes from picaso to Warhol , from bach to kanye west , from Tesla to jack ma , the author's intervention in the book could mere be the research and choice went into it . Book turns into a jumble of quotes , which were repeated , sentences and ideas too . "Geniuses happen when they die" . As one of the quote says , then the follow-up question would be , why then fill up the book with quotes of jack ma , Zuckerberg and many more ? Should've included content creators of YouTube then !
I would suggest ( and I know the writer will agree) to pick up the book to just go through the second chapter ' genius and gender' ! Which is so fine !
It is my first long review , could very well be loose with the choice of words ! Hope u get it !
Thankyou ,
As the title suggests " the hidden habits of genius " , the habits are not very hidden as such . The title is what we call it in today's world a "click-bait". Book focuses on the author's description of genius , and the epitomes . It then develops a generalization of the habits and the patterns amongst them . divided into 14 chapters ,few were dull , few were interesting , the latter did enhance my perspective towards the ideologies of these epitomes . Thus giving a distinction between the art and and the Artist .
With pages full of quotes from picaso to Warhol , from bach to kanye west , from Tesla to jack ma , the author's intervention in the book could mere be the research and choice went into it . Book turns into a jumble of quotes , which were repeated , sentences and ideas too . "Geniuses happen when they die" . As one of the quote says , then the follow-up question would be , why then fill up the book with quotes of jack ma , Zuckerberg and many more ? Should've included content creators of YouTube then !
I would suggest ( and I know the writer will agree) to pick up the book to just go through the second chapter ' genius and gender' ! Which is so fine !
It is my first long review , could very well be loose with the choice of words ! Hope u get it !
Thankyou ,
September 6, 2021
Worst book I’ve read in a while. And I must be honest I didn’t finish the last couple chapters. This book was valuable for maybe one chapter. Just not a good book!
August 20, 2023
The author is Actually not the expert for this field.
December 31, 2025
Really interesting read. Glad I picked this book up. A wide range of topics were discussed, many of which were similar to the one's discussed in debate, which gives me examples I might use in arguments.
Many people are talking about how the author doesn't fully analyze works of said geniuses and only focusses on how many books they sold in the example of J.K Rowling, or how much money they made in examples of buisness owners, to which I agree. Some parts of the book could definitely improve.
Despite this, I learnt a lot about different people and different topics.
I would like to spend some time breaking down some of the things mentioned in the book and see how I can apply them in my own life.
seing virginia woolf's book being mentioned in chapter 2 made me happy.
Many people are talking about how the author doesn't fully analyze works of said geniuses and only focusses on how many books they sold in the example of J.K Rowling, or how much money they made in examples of buisness owners, to which I agree. Some parts of the book could definitely improve.
Despite this, I learnt a lot about different people and different topics.
I would like to spend some time breaking down some of the things mentioned in the book and see how I can apply them in my own life.
seing virginia woolf's book being mentioned in chapter 2 made me happy.
Read
November 16, 2021A good read if you're interested in the topic of creativity (as opposed to mere facility), and I am. Each chapter introduces a different point about creative genius using various examples, along with some suggestions you might take from them for yourself. (One suggestion might be to avoid being personally involved with geniuses, especially the male ones.) It points out how various assumptions we make are often wrong, i.e. many were not high achievers, weren't necessarily child prodigies or even young at the time of their best work, and their epiphanies usually resulted from years of work (as well as dreams, walks, and showers). Also, a lot of these guys were/are insufferable. (Meanwhile, women geniuses tend not to be fully recognized -- there's a whole chapter on that.) An interesting read.
July 9, 2021
This wasn't exactly a "how to be a genius" book, like the title might suggest. The author teaches a class about geniuses at Yale and this is a summary of some of his observations about what makes a "genius" (his definition is narrower than most) and traits many geniuses throughout history have shared. He doesn't overly glorify those geniuses and acknowledges that many were awful people, especially in their interpersonal relationships. (See: Picasso) It was interesting to hear his perspectives on education as an ivy league professor and as a person who has studied some of the most groundbreaking and intelligent people that have lived. I also enjoyed learning a bit more about those notable individuals' lives.
August 9, 2020
I was able to read this book thanks to Netgalley.com
The author explores the different historical figures that are or can be considered a genius. From Elizabeth the First to Stephen Hawking he delves into their life, and lifestyle, and why they are considered a genius. He also discusses the attributes that are shared among geniuses, including insatiable curiosity, hard work, and a bit of luck. I enjoyed the historical and biographical information. It is well written and entertaining. #netgalley
The author explores the different historical figures that are or can be considered a genius. From Elizabeth the First to Stephen Hawking he delves into their life, and lifestyle, and why they are considered a genius. He also discusses the attributes that are shared among geniuses, including insatiable curiosity, hard work, and a bit of luck. I enjoyed the historical and biographical information. It is well written and entertaining. #netgalley
January 4, 2021
I do have to say I would probably never picked up this one if it wasn't for a university assignment one of so many offered books that we need to analyse. I do not regret that this book appeared on my horizon, I will be grateful for the insights into genius habits and maybe a tiny bit more convinced that there is a small genius in me also, but he on the contrary to the mentioned ones is sleeping or napping. It was a tough cookie to analyze for a course, but nonetheless it was an interesting piece.
Read
February 10, 2021This book at times feels redundant and repetitive. Perhaps because I’m a fan of looking to the geniuses of the past some of the big takeaways I’ve gotten from other writers.
Some of the chapters feel a little misleading.
I can’t pin point the thesis of this book, but the stand out quotes that will go in my common place book were really strong.
Reading, rest, intellectual curiosity, discipline, and countless other traits seem to tie these geniuses together.
This wasn’t a stand out, but glad I read it.
Some of the chapters feel a little misleading.
I can’t pin point the thesis of this book, but the stand out quotes that will go in my common place book were really strong.
Reading, rest, intellectual curiosity, discipline, and countless other traits seem to tie these geniuses together.
This wasn’t a stand out, but glad I read it.
September 21, 2021
So interesting. Years ago I read Bereiter/Scardamalia's book on expertise. Turns out when you are good at something, and get praised, you do more of it and you become better at it. Experts can't help learning more and understanding more--whether you are an astrophysicist, baker, or auto mechanic. In fact, you can't help it. Being encouraged by knowledgable parents/mentors doesn't hurt at all. That many "geniuses" were poor students or dropped out of college or were monstrous is not a career or life path. It takes a lot of searching and trial and error to find your true passion.
April 20, 2021
Interesting book that analyzes the lives of geniuses throughout history and across many different professions, nations, and walks of life. It often reads like a series of standalone articles, and felt repetitive to read for long periods of time. But the content was interesting and the takeaways were discrete and appropriate. Overlaps with a other books on habit formation, digital minimalism, meditation and goal-setting.
January 12, 2021
Such an interesting listen! Each chapter looked at a concept in relation to genius. My personal favorites were the chapter exploring the suppression of female geniuses and the chapter looking at formal education. Filled with fascinating biographical tidbits and strung together by a clear narrative, I definitely give this book a 5/5.
October 29, 2021
Have read a bunch of similar ideas in other books.
focus, balanced with the ability to relax and let your brain naturally do the works.
Be curious about everything, break rules and see things other people do not. etc.
refreshing review.
focus, balanced with the ability to relax and let your brain naturally do the works.
Be curious about everything, break rules and see things other people do not. etc.
refreshing review.
February 17, 2021
It’s hard to define genius. But I think we all want to feel special and this book does help us understand a bit more about how we can all better ourselves.
March 2, 2021
Life-changing analysis
March 23, 2022
What a fun and informative little book.
November 21, 2024
Aku baca versi bahasa Indonesia. Judulnya jadi Saat IQ, Bakat dan Ketekunan Tak Lagi Cukup.
Apakah genius itu? Kata genius sendiri udah gak asing lagi buat kita dengar. Tapi sebenernya kita paham gak sih sama arti kata genius ini? Siapa aja sebenernya orang-orang genius? Apa yang membedakan para genius ini dari orang lain? Kenapa mereka disebut genius? Apakah orang genius berarti baik dan memiliki moral? Apakah orang genius memiliki kehidupan yang bahagia? Siapakah orang genius dimasa kini?
Buku The Hidden Habits of Genius: Saat IQ, Bakat dan Ketekunan Tak Lagi Cukup yang ditulis oleh seorang profesor dari Universitas Yale ini bakalan ngebahas tuntas mengenai misteri dibalik orang-orang genius.
Menurut aku Profesor Craight Wright berhasil merangkum penelitiannya mengenai orang genius di buku ini dengan baik. Disampaikan dengan jelas, gak bertele-tele dan mudah dipahami. Terjemahannya juga bagus bangeeeet, jadi memudahkan aku buat memahaminya.
Einstein, Beethoven, Picasso, Steve Jobs. Nama-nama yang udah gak asing dan sering disebut sebagai orang genius. Aku sendiri udah beberapa kali baca artikel kisah hidup mereka dan selalu takjub. Kok bisa sih ada manusia segenius mereka? Apa sih yang bisa bikin mereka genius? Kegeniusan mereka bakalan dibahas di buku ini dan seru banget bacanya. Banyak info yang baru aku tau dari buku ini mengenai tokoh-tokoh tersebut.
Nah setelah baca buku ini tuh aku jadi dapat gambaran gimana seseorang bisa dianggap genius. Buat menjadi orang yang genius itu gak ada rumusnya, bukan cuma sekadar cerdas, berbakat dan kerja keras doang. Lebih kompleks dari itu. Menurut aku emang misteri yang sulit buat dipecahkan sih, kayanya emang orang genius tuh orang-orang pilihan dan mereka lahir dengan kegeniusan itu. Mereka bisa melihat dan memahami apa yang gak disadari orang-orang biasa.
Terus ternyata banyakan hidup orang-orang genius ini gak bahagia. Dan mereka juga gaak selalu punya moralitas yang baik. Ini menurut aku ya, kayanya menjadi orang genius tuh blessing and a curse at the same time gak sih? Aku gak apa-apa deh jadi orang biasa aja, asalkan bisa hidup tenang dan bahagia.
Meski buku ini gak akan bikin kita jadi orang genius, tapi dari baca buku ini seenggaknya kita bisa coba meniru kebiasaan-kebiasaan baik yang dilakukan para genius dan menerapkannya dalam kehidupan.
Aku sangat merekomendasikan buku ini. Apa lagi buat kalian yang memang tertarik sama tokoh-tokoh genius dan pengen tahu misteri dibalik kegeniusan mereka. Aku sendiri sangat menikmati baca buku ini. 🔥
Apakah genius itu? Kata genius sendiri udah gak asing lagi buat kita dengar. Tapi sebenernya kita paham gak sih sama arti kata genius ini? Siapa aja sebenernya orang-orang genius? Apa yang membedakan para genius ini dari orang lain? Kenapa mereka disebut genius? Apakah orang genius berarti baik dan memiliki moral? Apakah orang genius memiliki kehidupan yang bahagia? Siapakah orang genius dimasa kini?
Buku The Hidden Habits of Genius: Saat IQ, Bakat dan Ketekunan Tak Lagi Cukup yang ditulis oleh seorang profesor dari Universitas Yale ini bakalan ngebahas tuntas mengenai misteri dibalik orang-orang genius.
Menurut aku Profesor Craight Wright berhasil merangkum penelitiannya mengenai orang genius di buku ini dengan baik. Disampaikan dengan jelas, gak bertele-tele dan mudah dipahami. Terjemahannya juga bagus bangeeeet, jadi memudahkan aku buat memahaminya.
Einstein, Beethoven, Picasso, Steve Jobs. Nama-nama yang udah gak asing dan sering disebut sebagai orang genius. Aku sendiri udah beberapa kali baca artikel kisah hidup mereka dan selalu takjub. Kok bisa sih ada manusia segenius mereka? Apa sih yang bisa bikin mereka genius? Kegeniusan mereka bakalan dibahas di buku ini dan seru banget bacanya. Banyak info yang baru aku tau dari buku ini mengenai tokoh-tokoh tersebut.
Nah setelah baca buku ini tuh aku jadi dapat gambaran gimana seseorang bisa dianggap genius. Buat menjadi orang yang genius itu gak ada rumusnya, bukan cuma sekadar cerdas, berbakat dan kerja keras doang. Lebih kompleks dari itu. Menurut aku emang misteri yang sulit buat dipecahkan sih, kayanya emang orang genius tuh orang-orang pilihan dan mereka lahir dengan kegeniusan itu. Mereka bisa melihat dan memahami apa yang gak disadari orang-orang biasa.
Terus ternyata banyakan hidup orang-orang genius ini gak bahagia. Dan mereka juga gaak selalu punya moralitas yang baik. Ini menurut aku ya, kayanya menjadi orang genius tuh blessing and a curse at the same time gak sih? Aku gak apa-apa deh jadi orang biasa aja, asalkan bisa hidup tenang dan bahagia.
Meski buku ini gak akan bikin kita jadi orang genius, tapi dari baca buku ini seenggaknya kita bisa coba meniru kebiasaan-kebiasaan baik yang dilakukan para genius dan menerapkannya dalam kehidupan.
Aku sangat merekomendasikan buku ini. Apa lagi buat kalian yang memang tertarik sama tokoh-tokoh genius dan pengen tahu misteri dibalik kegeniusan mereka. Aku sendiri sangat menikmati baca buku ini. 🔥
January 26, 2022
Mozart. Joan of Arc. Einstein. Marie Curie. Steve Jobs. In The Hidden Habits of Genius, Craig Wright plumbs the depths of human capacity in nearly 100 extraordinarily successful individuals through the ages. In them, he finds the characteristics of genius that enable mere human beings to reach such heights of accomplishment that their efforts change society for millions of others and often resonate in memory for centuries to come. These fourteen traits he calls “hidden habits.”
GENIUS DOESN’T MEAN WHAT YOU PROBABLY THINK IT MEANS
For Wright, “genius is creativity and creativity involves change.” A genius, in his view, is not simply a person of exceptional ability. “A genius,” he explains, “is a person of extraordinary mental powers whose original works or insights change society in some significant way for good or ill across cultures and across time.” But this is not what the author expected to find when he set out on his research. “I had in my mind a picture of the genius: someone with a superhigh IQ who, even as a youth, has sudden ‘aha’ insights, yet is eccentric and unpredictable. Every feature of this stereotypical imagine, I have now learned, is wrong or inaccurate in most cases.”
100 GENIUSES PROFILED
Wright delves into the lives of nearly 100 extraordinary individuals over the span of recorded history. Nearly all of them are boldface names we all readily recognize (or should). Scientists, musicians, painters, writers, politicians—they’re drawn from every walk of life. And, as Wright takes pains to point out, most of them have been extremely unpleasant people, who have treated their families and others around them very poorly. However, Wright does not include in his tally such legendarily bad actors as Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, all of whom clearly fit his definition of genius for their impact on society. Wright errs on the side of constructive impact, not destructive.
THE FOURTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF GENIUS
In each of fourteen chapters, Wright elaborates on one of the “hidden habits” he perceives in genius. He sums them up in the introduction but doesn’t later name them as such. Here they are:
Work ethic
Resilience
Originality
Childlike imagination
Insatiable curiosity
Passion
Creative maladjustment
Rebelliousness
Cross-border thinking
Contrarian action
Preparation
Obsession
Relaxation
Concentration
Perhaps it’s obvious, but the point may need emphasis: every genius doesn’t necessarily exhibit all fourteen of these traits. In fact, I’d be surprised if any of them did. But every genius shows evidence of the majority of these “hidden habits.”
IS IQ A MEASURE OF GENIUS?
Can IQ tests measure genius? Wright powerfully makes the case that this may be the greatest fallacy of all about genius. In underlining the point, he cites “a famous ‘genius test’ conducted at Stanford by Lewis Terman and colleagues from the 1920s into the 1990s, a cohort of 1,500 youngsters with IQs over 135 [that] ultimately failed to produce a single genius.”
Consider the question from a statistical perspective. About 1 in 31,560 individuals achieves an IQ score of more than 160, a level that’s frequently cited as indicating “genius.” There are some 7.8 billion people in the world. Which means that, if everyone could be tested, we would assume that roughly 247,000 people are geniuses. Does this make sense? Cut the number in half and half twice again, just to be safe, and you’re left with about 31,000. Are there 31,000 people in the world destined to “change [the world] for good or ill across cultures and across time?” I don’t think so. Do you? But might that IQ score simply be too low? Try 165 instead. Approximately 1 in 100,000 people are tested at that level or above. And if we perform the same calculations, we find that some 9,750 must be geniuses. Which is also absurd on the face of things.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
Perhaps, then, we should look even higher on the IQ scale. The chances of scoring 200 on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test are 1 in 4,852,159,346. That’s 1 in 4.8 billion people, which means that such a person would presumably be alone in the world. But IQ, after all, is a measure of potential, not of achievement. And I happened to know a youngster in my home town who was reliably said to have an IQ at that level. He went to Harvard at age 11. And died of a heroin overdose the following year.
Not convinced by any of this? I’ll add another personal note. When I was a child of three or four, my parents sent me to a licensed psychologist to determine my IQ. I was what was regarded as precocious. Distrusting the result, they got a second opinion. A year or two later, they had me tested again. As my mother told me many years later, I scored 165, 168, and 172 on these tests. (Yes, I still remember these numbers. I obsessed about them for far too long and wish she’d never told me.) Does this high IQ mean I’m a genius? Nonsense! Not even close.
I’ve led a productive life for 80 years and become reasonably successful, but in no way, shape, or form have I changed the world, or even a very small part of it. I’m certain I’m of above average intelligence, but I frequently encounter people who run intellectual circles around me. And I often have trouble understanding densely written text. Genius as Craig Wright sees it, and as I see it, is exceedingly rare—and it’s clearly got little or nothing to do with IQ.
For a reasonably well-balanced summary of what’s known about IQ, see “What is a genius IQ score?”
A TEXT MARRED BY OCCASIONAL ERRORS
Wright has been teaching a course on genius at Yale for many years. The research he (or his graduate students) conducted to supply the details he cites in the book must have been extensive, indeed. However, it’s difficult for me to accept it all as gospel, because minor errors crop up in the text. For example, the sun is not the center of the galaxy (which is in fact some 26,000 light-years distant). And Mark Twain did not say or write “The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco” (no matter how many times others have attributed the saying to him).
It’s not too much of a stretch to think that similar errors might have crept into Wright’s stories about the lives of the people he profiles. Still, nearly everything in the book of which I had prior knowledge squared with what I know, so I’m inclined to regard the errors as minor slip-ups and not consequential.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Craig M. Wright (1944-) was a professor of music at Yale University for decades and is now emeritus. He holds an MA and PhD in musicology from Harvard. The Hidden Habits of Genius is his seventh book. It followed his deep dive into the life of Wolfgang Mozart and Wright’s determination to understand the roots of the man’s genius.
GENIUS DOESN’T MEAN WHAT YOU PROBABLY THINK IT MEANS
For Wright, “genius is creativity and creativity involves change.” A genius, in his view, is not simply a person of exceptional ability. “A genius,” he explains, “is a person of extraordinary mental powers whose original works or insights change society in some significant way for good or ill across cultures and across time.” But this is not what the author expected to find when he set out on his research. “I had in my mind a picture of the genius: someone with a superhigh IQ who, even as a youth, has sudden ‘aha’ insights, yet is eccentric and unpredictable. Every feature of this stereotypical imagine, I have now learned, is wrong or inaccurate in most cases.”
100 GENIUSES PROFILED
Wright delves into the lives of nearly 100 extraordinary individuals over the span of recorded history. Nearly all of them are boldface names we all readily recognize (or should). Scientists, musicians, painters, writers, politicians—they’re drawn from every walk of life. And, as Wright takes pains to point out, most of them have been extremely unpleasant people, who have treated their families and others around them very poorly. However, Wright does not include in his tally such legendarily bad actors as Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, all of whom clearly fit his definition of genius for their impact on society. Wright errs on the side of constructive impact, not destructive.
THE FOURTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF GENIUS
In each of fourteen chapters, Wright elaborates on one of the “hidden habits” he perceives in genius. He sums them up in the introduction but doesn’t later name them as such. Here they are:
Work ethic
Resilience
Originality
Childlike imagination
Insatiable curiosity
Passion
Creative maladjustment
Rebelliousness
Cross-border thinking
Contrarian action
Preparation
Obsession
Relaxation
Concentration
Perhaps it’s obvious, but the point may need emphasis: every genius doesn’t necessarily exhibit all fourteen of these traits. In fact, I’d be surprised if any of them did. But every genius shows evidence of the majority of these “hidden habits.”
IS IQ A MEASURE OF GENIUS?
Can IQ tests measure genius? Wright powerfully makes the case that this may be the greatest fallacy of all about genius. In underlining the point, he cites “a famous ‘genius test’ conducted at Stanford by Lewis Terman and colleagues from the 1920s into the 1990s, a cohort of 1,500 youngsters with IQs over 135 [that] ultimately failed to produce a single genius.”
Consider the question from a statistical perspective. About 1 in 31,560 individuals achieves an IQ score of more than 160, a level that’s frequently cited as indicating “genius.” There are some 7.8 billion people in the world. Which means that, if everyone could be tested, we would assume that roughly 247,000 people are geniuses. Does this make sense? Cut the number in half and half twice again, just to be safe, and you’re left with about 31,000. Are there 31,000 people in the world destined to “change [the world] for good or ill across cultures and across time?” I don’t think so. Do you? But might that IQ score simply be too low? Try 165 instead. Approximately 1 in 100,000 people are tested at that level or above. And if we perform the same calculations, we find that some 9,750 must be geniuses. Which is also absurd on the face of things.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
Perhaps, then, we should look even higher on the IQ scale. The chances of scoring 200 on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test are 1 in 4,852,159,346. That’s 1 in 4.8 billion people, which means that such a person would presumably be alone in the world. But IQ, after all, is a measure of potential, not of achievement. And I happened to know a youngster in my home town who was reliably said to have an IQ at that level. He went to Harvard at age 11. And died of a heroin overdose the following year.
Not convinced by any of this? I’ll add another personal note. When I was a child of three or four, my parents sent me to a licensed psychologist to determine my IQ. I was what was regarded as precocious. Distrusting the result, they got a second opinion. A year or two later, they had me tested again. As my mother told me many years later, I scored 165, 168, and 172 on these tests. (Yes, I still remember these numbers. I obsessed about them for far too long and wish she’d never told me.) Does this high IQ mean I’m a genius? Nonsense! Not even close.
I’ve led a productive life for 80 years and become reasonably successful, but in no way, shape, or form have I changed the world, or even a very small part of it. I’m certain I’m of above average intelligence, but I frequently encounter people who run intellectual circles around me. And I often have trouble understanding densely written text. Genius as Craig Wright sees it, and as I see it, is exceedingly rare—and it’s clearly got little or nothing to do with IQ.
For a reasonably well-balanced summary of what’s known about IQ, see “What is a genius IQ score?”
A TEXT MARRED BY OCCASIONAL ERRORS
Wright has been teaching a course on genius at Yale for many years. The research he (or his graduate students) conducted to supply the details he cites in the book must have been extensive, indeed. However, it’s difficult for me to accept it all as gospel, because minor errors crop up in the text. For example, the sun is not the center of the galaxy (which is in fact some 26,000 light-years distant). And Mark Twain did not say or write “The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco” (no matter how many times others have attributed the saying to him).
It’s not too much of a stretch to think that similar errors might have crept into Wright’s stories about the lives of the people he profiles. Still, nearly everything in the book of which I had prior knowledge squared with what I know, so I’m inclined to regard the errors as minor slip-ups and not consequential.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Craig M. Wright (1944-) was a professor of music at Yale University for decades and is now emeritus. He holds an MA and PhD in musicology from Harvard. The Hidden Habits of Genius is his seventh book. It followed his deep dive into the life of Wolfgang Mozart and Wright’s determination to understand the roots of the man’s genius.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews