The Literary Mind

Brilliant analysis by Ilanna Simons one might not grasps the other end without first of experiencing the other sides such as Picasso and the likes. Even Paul one of the apostles of the christian faith learnt obedience through rebellion. Simply put:failure preceeds sucess.

Brilliant analysis by Ilana Simons,Ph.D., one might not grasps the other end without first of experiencing the other sides such as Picasso and the likes. Even Paul one of the apostles of the christian faith learnt obedience through rebellion. Simply put:failure preceeds sucess.

"It's rare to find someone who shows remarkably high "arrogance [and] hostility" alongside remarkably high "openness to experience and flexibility."

The rare (1% of the general population) Myers Briggs Personality Type "INTJ" is well suited.

thanks for the post. You're probably right--INTJ's are intuitive (can go with the gut) but are also the judging type, or logically-minded builders of systems. I'd like to hear more on your take.

Great post, Ilana. I think you are talking about different aspects of professional identity: one's ideas, and one's relationship to her professional community. Rebelliousness can be seen as simply being judgmental/critical of the mainstream or those in power. Many have characterized the Republicans in Congress is simply being the party of no, who offer no constructive alternatives. However, rebelliousness might also be a characterization by the mainstream of ideas that are new and original, and challenge or stretch current thinking, and thereby the authority/power of mainstream. It seems true to me that 'geniuses' need to be able to locate themselves within their field, and use that as a point of departure. What is cool is how having an original voice can be either viewed as creative or rebellious, depending on the dynamics of power. I would argue that a stance of openness and flexibility permit colleagues to get past the stickiness of power dynamics. Easier said than done, but something to strive for.

Hi Emily--
Thanks for the post. I hadn't actually been thinking of things on the political level, but you're drawing this idea out in such interesting ways. I guess that a whole host of different personality features (beyond rebelliousness vs. conformity) come out at the level of political and professional negotiation.

I always tell people that there are two kinds of rebels. You have the maverick and then you have the renegade. A maverick is an individual whose actions are taken for reasons of justice oppose to law or truth oppose to fact. Their intentions constitute action for the betterment of all mankind. They put others first oppose to their own self-interest; examples would be Jesus Christ, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi. The renegade is the negative side of the rebel. The renegade thinks inwardly, mainly about themselves and their own self-interest. They tend to be flashy, horde attention, very materialist, and in theory there’s a tenacious possibility that a neurosis is rooted in their behavior stemming from their childhood. This kind of behavior is hallmark and symbolic of people who have abused many positive inventions and ideas for their own self-gains. A prime example of positive things that were abused would be dynamite. Alfred Nobel was the person that invented dynamite and was later erroneously label the merchant of death due to an invention of a product that was initially made to help mankind with removing large boulders and digging mines. But instead was incorporated by people who sought it use it as a tool of destruction and war for selfish gains.

I actually predicted this difference. It is the same difference as the difference between autism and schizophrenia. Autistic people tend to be conscious only of the things in the world which are finely ordered. Autistics can only seek fundamentality on a quantum level, whereas schizophrenia is the opposite. Schizophrenic thought seeks out fundamentality solely on a universal level. This is because schizophrenics operate on the assumption that the universe has something to say from a higher level, and autistics operate on the assumption that the universe has something to say from a lower level. Each is right, but because neither takes into account the other, neither explains everything. The highest level of intelligence is an even mix between schizophrenic and autistic thought, with a high awareness of both. Everybody has both, but some people are more aware of one than the other. This is why autistic people express emotions yet aren't conscious of them, and it is why schizophrenic people express logic in a way that can't be comprehended by most. Because most people are a relatively even mix of both types of thought, most people have the capacity for what is seen as "genius", though when they reach that level, they see that everything is genius in its own right, on some level. It's just often hard to see the connection between the information that goes into a system and the information that comes out. We view that as a learning disability, or a mental disorder, because it doesn't average itself out in a way we understand. But it does, on a fundamental level, average itself out; it just doesn't use the same information we use, so we can't comprehend it.

This article reminded me of a cool quote: "The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking." -A. A. Milne (1882 - 1956)

I am interested as why you used the feminine pronoun (she) when referring to genius, yet throughout your article you only referenced male 'geniuses'; Einstein, Darwin, Lamarck, Picasso.
Any female geniuses you have in mind?