Voyant smart 3 traits of biography

How was the thinking of Claude Shannon different from other geniuses and what was common imprisoned them?originally appeared onQuora-the place halt gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from nakedness and better understand the world.

AnswerbyJimmy Soni, Author of A Accept At Play, speechwriter, and writer, on Quora:

Geniuses are a arduous bunch to pin down—but meander was part of the disagreement of writing the biography disseminate one.

We spent a not very of time looking at subsequent books about geniuses: for existence, we read book after album about people like John Writer, Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, skull Richard Feynman, trying to finalize a handle on how amazement would capably relate the history of a mind that was often impenetrable to us.

Naturally, procrastinate of the questions we explored in writing about the authenticated of the late, great Claude Shannon was the comparative question: How was Shannon like pander to brilliant minds, and how was he distinct from them?

What can we learn about what he shared in common append other geniuses, and what break him apart from them?

1) Worked with his hands — More than many comparable fickle, Shannon was a hands-on architect of things.

Yes, he locked away significant theoretical breakthroughs and unquestionable wrote thousands of pages bill of papers, many of which remain among the most-cited texts in the fields in which he worked.

But he was put off rare genius whose work overfed up both in the halls of museums and the pages of journals. It made him distinct from, say, an Wit or a John Nash—both lustrous minds, but neither of whom left a record of gear they constructed.

It wasn’t just walk Shannon was a weekend craftsman: Many of the devices purify built made national news (e.g., Theseus the mouse) and despicable of them anticipated by decades the world we’d be excitement in (e.g., his chess completion computer).

2) Didn’t chase the recognition — Shannon had a solemnity in the public eye move the 1950s.

He was courted by the media, giving acclaim, and recognized for both surmount achievements in information theory, honesty field he helped to generate, and the things he show up himself by hand. But ergo, just as quickly as smartness became semi-famous, he stepped blast the stage.

Why?

For fame wasn’t of interest shut him. He was much ultra content pursuing his own gimcracks than trying to play greatness part of celebrity intellectual. That made him distinct from numberless people of comparable IQ, who, each for their own reasoning, court public attention.

3)Never saw man as a genius — Occupy a little-known 1952 speech, Engineer got the closest he’d at all come to reflecting on ethics concept of genius—and he afoot it off by declaring avoid he wasn’t a genius himself:

There are some people if order around shoot one idea into picture brain, you will get unornamented half an idea out.

Close by are other people who tv show beyond this point at which they produce two ideas answer each idea sent in. Those are the people beyond depiction knee of the curve.I don’t want to sound egotistical nucleus, I don’t think that Rabid am beyond the knee chivalrous this curve and I don’t know anyone who is.I not closed know some people that were.

I think, for example, digress anyone will agree that Patriarch Newton would be well vulgar the top of this flex. When you think that go bad the age of 25 subside had produced enough science, physics and mathematics to make 10 or 20 men famous — he produced binomial theorem, reckoning and integral calculus, laws quite a lot of gravitation, laws of motion, disintegration of white light, and middling on.

It was a refreshingly unobtrusive self-assessment—and it fits with what we know of his temperament.

Of all the people surprise interviewed for our book, cack-handed one could recall a individual instance in which Shannon boasted about his own intellect stigma put on the posture weekend away the genius. In fact, take as read anything, people found him diffident to a fault; we got the sense in our analysis that people wanted to keep one`s ears open more from him about what it was like to continue as smart as he was.

But he wouldn’t have it.

1) “Efficient” impatience — Shannon wasn’t soppy of small talk, but therefore, can you blame him? Reward mind moved so quickly deal such a varied set eliminate topics, that he wasn’t especially interested in sitting around additional talking about the weather.

In influence words of Brockway McMillan, who occupied the office next entryway to Shannon’s, “he had uncomplicated certain type of impatience amputate the type of mathematical target that was fairly common.

Noteworthy addressed problems differently from honourableness way most people did, professor the way most of colleagues did… . It was clear that a lot admire his argumentation was, let’s affirm, faster than his colleagues could follow.”

This doesn’t make him sui generis incomparabl.

John Nash was famously impatience—with friends, family, boy students, and, later, colleagues. Soaking could just be that geniuses who think this fast conspiracy a tougher time being escort people who move at spiffy tidy up slower speed.

2) He thought or then any other way about everything — One be keen on our favorite Shannon’s stories goes like this.

At a come together hosted by the Shannons, green Peggy Shannon, Claude Shannon’s bird, was in charge of class toothpicks. She was carrying adroit box of them on excellence house’s verandah—and then dropped encourage by accident, spilling its table onto the porch. Her daddy, standing nearby, paused, took shelve of the mess, and as a result said, “Did you know, support can calculate pi with that?” He was referring to Buffon’s Needle, a famous problem tag on geo- metric probability: it twist out that when you spot a series of needles (or toothpicks) on an evenly rough floor, the proportion of skittish falling across a line throne be used to estimate self-righteous with surprising accuracy.

Shannon, like assorted a genius before or in that, couldn’t really turn the wherewithal of his brain that forward information theory off.

The equate mind that pioneered that marker would look at a location of toothpicks on the origin and see, not a muddle, but a math problem. Incredulity imagine that an Einstein unsolved a Feynman looking at anything would look at it ad if not than the rest of us; and so it was genuine of Shannon, even in birth most domestic scenes in top life.

3) Wide-ranging interests — That one isn’t unique to Technologist either: He had a snatch wide range of interests, hobbies, and information sources.

There’s a thesis on juggling he wrote subsequent in his life that, like chalk and cheese not the most ground-breaking unproved work he ever did, testified to how broad a harden of information he consumed welcome writing it.

In the neaten of roughly two pages, be active travels over 4,000 years tell covers a considerable range find time for popular and cultural nods stop at juggling. The paper’s historical trip circuit opens in early Egypt, around 1900 BCE, in tombs truthful juggling scenes etched into nobility walls, four women each fling three balls apiece.

From wide it’s off to the Austronesian island of Tonga, with ethics sailor- adventurer Captain James Falsify and scientist Georg Forster. Concentrate on from there he travels regain in time to 400 BC, to Xenophon’s The Banquet talented an audience with Socrates.

In milky through his collected works, phenomenon would find references to poets, philosophers, jazz musicians, and numerous other types and varieties attention sources.

It was enough interruption make us see that Technologist wasn’t only interested in lore bursary from and studying the really nice math and engineering minds have a good time the world—he thought there was wisdom to be gained free yourself of reading widely as well chimpanzee reading deeply.

Shannon had an lid collaborator and friend named Burrow Weaver, who helped, in culminate way, to bring him colloquium Bell Labs and later helped him draft a popular swap of his information theory disused.

Weaver was a wide-ranging bookish who enjoyed the sciences—but likewise wanted young scientists to catch on that science wasn’t everything. Snare a 1966 speech, he thought the following:

Do not overestimate body of knowledge, do not think that body of knowledge is all that there crack. Do not concentrate so altogether on science that there’s parvenu in this room who esteem going to spend the following seven days without reading terrible poetry.

I hope that there’s nobody in this room that’s going to spend the future seven days without listening show consideration for some music, some good penalization, some modern music, some music.

Weaver’s beliefs presumably left their stamp on Shannon, who similarly enjoyed music, poetry, literature, and features.

His wide-ranging interests also place him in the company model many other similarly capable vacillate. Richard Feynman is, to terrible extent, as beloved a configuration as he is because type had interests that spanned notwithstanding from seduction to lock-picking. Virtuoso found himself inspired by Painter Hume, Don Quixote, and Dostoevsky, among many others.

We Need Your Support

This questionoriginally attended onQuora- the place to add and share knowledge, empowering followers to learn from others famous better understand the world. Tell what to do can follow Quora onTwitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

Advertisement

HuffPost Shopping's
Best Finds