From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric S. Raymond" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:00:52 -0400 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20071011020052.GA3096@thyrsus.com> References: <20071010222633.B8E0A73931@grelber.thyrsus.com> <20071010231818.GD1955@thyrsus.com> <85ve9etr2o.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1192068034 5989 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2007 02:00:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:00:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 11 04:00:32 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IfnLj-0001Vk-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:00:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfnLd-0007tP-LW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:00:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfnLZ-0007t0-1h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:00:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfnLW-0007sl-2w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:00:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfnLV-0007si-SA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:00:17 -0400 Original-Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5] helo=snark) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IfnLT-0002TK-K9; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:00:15 -0400 Original-Received: by snark (Postfix, from userid 23) id 0507238032; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <85ve9etr2o.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:80571 Archived-At: David Kastrup : > Most creative geniuses are nuts one way or the other. This is commonly believed. It's also not true. Admissions to mental hospitals per thousand drop off with increasing IQ. The professions with the lowest insanity rates are mathematicians and theoretical phycisists, where creative genius is a minimunm requisite to get in the door. (Highest, in case you care, are waiters and short-order cooks.) Yes, geniuses, in aggregate, are *saner* than average. That's not to say they don't have their own bell curve with some nutters on the low end, but their median is higher. This is true even though there are a handful of forms of dementia that *only* affect the extremely bright -- they're results of the brain, in effect, overclocking itself. Just to be annoying, geniuses are also longer-lived, better-looking, and more sexually active than average (there is good statistical evidence for all three), Intelligence and creative ability are not isolated traits; they're usually (though not invariably) an epiphenomenon of genes that produce physical health and vigor as well. The looks connection, BTW, comes from the fact that the two most important beauty/handsomeness traits -- good skin and feature symmetry -- are indicators of a robust immune system. In fact, that's *why* beauty is sexually important. And immune-system function is probably *more* closely connected to creativity and genius than most other aspects of physical health; the relevant tissue systems are closely related, both being elaborations of the embryonic ectoderm. Near as I can tell, the trope that geniuses are usually sickly or mad persists only because it makes people who aren't geniuses feel better about not being geniuses. It was utterly shattered, for me, the day I was invited to speak at the Institute for Advanced Study, went to faculty tea -- and noticed to my astonishment that the tea crowd looked remarkably like a collection of Land's End models or TV stars. Subsequently, I researched the matter, discovered the things I have related above, and stopped being surprised. -- Eric S. Raymond