Smoke and Mirrors

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

Legend has it that in the 3^rd century B.C., Greek polymath Archimedes invented what has been called the “death ray” or, alternatively, the “heat ray”. The purpose of this Flash Gordonesque-sounding device was to burn and destroy enemy ships from afar using focused rays of sunlight. For Archimedes, “father of mathematical physics”, the reasoning would have been relatively simple: sunlight, reflected from the concavity of a parabolic mirror of relatively sizeable surface area, converges upon a comparatively small, suitably remote, area of quite combustible material, generating intense heat and, ultimately, fire. Whether this “weaponization” of the sun truly occurred is still, in the year 2225 A.A., the subject of debate and experimentation.

The sun set on Archimedes in the year 212 B.C. His legendary ray, however, has since evolved. In 1984, the year of "Big Brother", Archimedes’ “heat ray” was updated by your Anonymous CFO. Below is a depiction of “SOLAR”–Sunlight Optimization through L-Angled Reflection–in Archimedean setting.

Please note that SOLAR was conceived purely as an exercise in inventive thinking, without knowledge of the legend of the “burning-glasses” of Archimedes; moreover, there have been no ships set ablaze as a consequence.

Genius - Installment IV - The Slow Genius

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*


Albert Einstein, regarded by many as the quintessential genius, was known as a “slow thinker”. Most probably the appellation alluded to the “mechanics” of his thinking, not the underlying neurophysiological processes. This installment on Genius will attempt a glimpse of the problem-solving mechanics and the collective personality of Einstein and others who, in the author’s view, are reasonably (albeit oxymoronically) characterized as “slow geniuses”. 

Slow geniuses are of a type less inclined to seek the shortest distance between two points than to search for meaning in the space, points, and movement along the traverse. They fixate, not so much on solution as essence, seeking holistic resonance where most would contentedly settle for the interrogative’s bottom line; for them, the question is no less significant than the answer. They are often vague, intuitive gropers who are not averse to “winging it”. Frequently, and perhaps, at times, injudiciously, they will jettison their bags of scholarly tools lest they impede entry into those narrow, pitchy spaces–places within which may exist curled dimensions of meaning hitherto uncharted.

The thought processes of the slow genius may seem strange or disorderly, or obsessively redundant; but the appearance of one following one’s “gut” can be deceiving. Employing feedback looping, this genius examines and reexamines points in question with what, to the casual observer, would appear a Rain Man-like tolerance for monotony. Our genius is looking for chinks in a seemingly ironclad understanding, with or without benefit of the subtly different light of a recent insight. Occasionally, a hairline crack is revealed, though, more often than not, it is proven a mere craze. There are, however, occasions where, under seemingly serendipitous circumstances, such flaws are found to propagate deep beneath the surface. The slow genius understands that any such flaw might be part of a network, and that, as a consequence, the present clarity-impeding barrier could succumb to a well-placed, thoughtfully nuanced nudge, shattering under the weight of its own illogicality.  

The characteristic “slowness” of the slow genius may be innate, or it may be something into which he or she has grown through years of creative pursuit. This is one who is, at times, ambivalent: resentful of his or her relative inability to “think on one’s feet”–particularly under social circumstance–but one who is undyingly, deeply grateful for a most profound gift. Invariably it is the gift–the light of one illumined–that burns away the fog of mixed emotion.


Albert Einstein

Genius - Installment III - The Dialogue

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

 

Inquisitor:
If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? More important, why are you doing work that gives you little or no satisfaction at the expense of passion-quenching creative pursuit? Why haven't you used your intelligence to make a fortune, to free yourself to live out the rest of your life in a state of unbridled discovery and creativity?

Genius:
I am inclined to answer “Contempt!”–contempt for a system that requires me to be both creator and entrepreneur that I may earn the wherewithal, and hence, the “privilege”, to create without constraint; but I know that my reasons run deeper. It isn’t a matter of principle–or obstinacy (though I am not necessarily a rational being in every circumstance)–that drives me to buck the system and settle for a life of “breadwinning”, half-hearted, half-baked wealth-generating schemes, and part-time creation. I do so because I dare not suspend my creative work, but more on this in a bit. Now one might argue that there are breadwinner/creator success stories. With this I would have no disagreement–it is this very notion, together with the creative work itself, that sustains me. I would posit, however, that not all luminous part-time creators are successful; that those successes would be considerably more prevalent were it not for the albatross that is the green-paper chase. Of course, I could reject the path of the part-time creator as well: refuse or quit the job, draw a monthly welfare check, forsake all of the trappings of the 40-60 hours-a-work-week trudge, and spend all of my time doing what I love. But I am not without ethical sense, and the fact is, some of those trappings may be conducive, if not essential, to my creating. Moreover, there is the oft-considered matter of the ruinous effect such rebellion might have on familial relationships, the heart-rending sorrow. Not all geniuses are ruthless, devoid of empathic sense. Returning to the matter of the entrepreneur, you might reasonably ask: Couldn’t you mount a one-man entrepreneurial “blitzkrieg” to quickly get over what, for you, would surely be a mere bump in the road? Even for the genius–particularly one who finds business mind-numbingly dull and distasteful–consummation of a wealth-generating endeavor rarely occurs quickly, certainly not quickly enough for one whose only interest is to meaningfully create. Putting one’s passion “on hold” is torturous, and it can be destructive. Consider the danger of losing that narrow “window of opportunity”, the period in one’s life where his or her peculiar form of creativity is most efficacious; or creative atrophy: the deterioration and seizing of the workings of the too-long-dormant “machine”. Then there is the hazard of focal shift: the losing of oneself to the rush of amassing ever greater wealth. To squander one’s creative gift in pursuit of monetary gain is, to the mind of the genius, self-anathematization.

The wisdom-in-a capsule adage “Do what you love and the money will follow” is simplistic hearsay; moreover, contrary to the aphoristically expressed convictions of Francis Galton concerning the indomitable spirit and unstoppable ascent of great intellect– untimely death aside–genius does not always “out”.

"Punch Clock" - Courtesy of Secret5468

Genius - Installment II - The Measure of Mind

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved.

Can intelligence be measured? Ask a psychometrician–one specializing in the field of “mental measurement”–and the answer would be a resounding “Yes!” Ask ten philosophers to define intelligence, however, and you’d almost certainly get ten different, and perhaps conflicting, definitions. Such "technicalities" aside, the psychometrician’s instrument of choice for gauging intelligence is, of course, the IQ test. Now, many would posit (or, at least, agree) that a genius is simply one who manifests exceptional intelligence, and thus is one of extremely high IQ. This, however, can be at odds with the convention of recognizing those of great and inspiring intellectual or artistic achievement as geniuses. Consider the case of William Shockley and Luis Alvarez. In the 1920s, each was administered an IQ test in connection with psychologist Lewis Terman's now famous study of gifted children, intended to, among other things, identify future Nobel laureates. Neither William nor Luis demonstrated even the minimum 135 IQ necessary to join the Terman group, sometimes referred to as Terman’s “Termites”; nevertheless, both went on to become physicists of renown and Nobel laureates. Moreover, not one of the Terman group, comprising more than 1,500 gifted children with IQs ranging from 135 to 180+, went on to garner a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize.

So, do IQ tests measure intelligence? I would put it a bit differently and suggest that they quantify certain manifestations of intelligence–rapid processing, for example–while missing or minimizing other manifestations, such as intuitive sensibility, which serves the true visionary like a "sixth sense". The preceding case, taken in isolation, is merely interesting–of little, if any, significance. I suspect, however, that were it taken in broader context, it would serve to underscore the incapacity of IQ tests to identify those most able to beget revolutionary productions of the mind. 

Genius - Installment I - The Blessed "Naïve"

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved.

Geniuses tend to know quite a bit, and, as most of us have learned, “knowledge is power”. So, as one might expect, these luminaries make up a pretty powerful, albeit, relatively sparsely populated, group of problem solvers. Interestingly, as it turns out, all of that horsepower can sometimes be an impediment to discovery. One particular problem exemplifies this rather nicely and is stated thus: Using ordinary permanent magnets, how do you stably levitate one such magnet above another? Anyone who’s had even a modicum of interest in the peculiar behavior of magnets has tried this repeatedly, perhaps even obsessively, only to become frustrated as the would-be floater, without fail, flipped over and slammed into the intended supporting magnet, polar north against polar south. It is a problem whose solution most in the scientific realm would now characterize as “relatively simple”; yet, remarkably, no one–not even the scientists–were up to the task. Perhaps the scientists can be forgiven. After all, they'd entered a state of suspended curiosity. They’d learned that a theorem of renowned nineteenth century mathematician Samuel Earnshaw prohibited the arrangement of permanent magnets in such a way that a magnet of that arrangement could be held in static levitation entirely through the effect of that arrangement. Ever since, physicists had been of the mind that any attempt to produce levitation with permanent magnets merely served as testament to one’s scientific illiteracy. Then, in 1983, inventor and ostensible member of the American Society for the Scientifically Illiterate, Roy M. Harrigan, patented what was to become known as the first spin-stabilized magnetic levitation device, employing permanent magnets and nothing else of consequence. His invention, an elegant display of eye-popping, fantasy-feeding flight, is now the popular levitating spinning top device known as the Levitron®. Now, before you release your inner cynic and note that the likelihood of such a discovery occurring in the dimly lit outskirts of academia is tantamount to finding a particular grain of sand in the Sahara, know that lightning struck twice with this very discovery. In 1984, a college drop-out named Joseph Chieffo, who was unaware of Harrigan’s patented (but little known) air-borne revelation, also discovered spin-stabilized magnetic levitation.

The Levitron® - Courtesy of img finder