The problem with Genius

A lot of us succeed in day to day life. Success is almost always measured on the basis of results which are often easily quantified and flashed as headlines in one form or the other. What is always left unexplored is the path to success. The more I think about it – there are only two clear routes to success. One Method and two Genius.

Genius is usually defined as an ‘exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability’. The most important deduction is that (as you would say in study of microeconomics) genius is an internal. Genius is the inherent ability of an individual. It can be put to use with the same efficacy at any time of the day.

Method is perhaps what you would call the learning component of an activity. Method is all about skill. Method is about improving your chances by repetitive practice. Method is about locking yourself in a room, giving up things that you like and focusing on the task in hand, by repeatedly (rather monotonously) doing the same thing. Over a longer period of time, method can take various forms and there is always a chance for improvisation. The key takeaway is that method is an external.

Almost every publication in the world refers to Sachin Tendulkar as the best batsman of his generation. But very rarely, perhaps never has his success been attributed to Genius. Sachin Tendulkar is the epitome of Method – a brilliant example of how the power of Method can be harnessed to its optimum. There have been stories of Sachin being asked to practice with a one rupee coin kept on the stumps. If he batted through the entire practice session without getting bowled, he would be allowed to keep the coin. A lot of Sachin’s critics have pointed out his inability to win matches overseas. Throughout his childhood, Method prepared Sachin to play on the tracks of the sub-continent. Methodical approach would take more time (especially as compared to Genius) to adjust to different conditions abroad. Its all but natural.

Genius is the ability to score 40 ball hundreds on green-tops when the rest of the team folds out without scoring. Genius is about making Method looks stupid. Humiliate it at times. Genius is about playing an outrageous shot and getting out on a zero when your team needs you most. And then be shameless enough to smile at the cameras while biting into a Cassata. Genius could be equated to Virender Sehwag.

There have been times when some very enthusiastic (rather delusional?) relatives have termed me a genius. They could not have been farther from the truth. (General gyaan alert. Farther is appropriate when used in terms of distance. Further denotes time span. I had noted this during the CAT preps an year ago.) My life is governed by Method to the tee. I make lists all the time to organize things. Add new items. Cut out items. Duplicate lists. Write them twice. Make new lists. I solve sums. 100 sums of the same variety. If the 101st sum is asked, I won’t be able to answer. I rarely participate in class. For I don’t grasp things intuitively. Only when I go back to my room, and re-read what has happened, I am in a position to comment on the topic. When I’m learning a new topic/skill (say driving a car, economics, appreciation of poetry), I  lag behind to start with as the initial phase is all about Genius. It is internal. Only after a certain period of time, the impact of Method sets in. And I begin to make ground on the Geniuses who have the early advantage. In short, I am a Method person, and I have no hesitation in admitting it. And I am tempted to believe that I understand how Method works and can spot Method in action! Rahul Dravid’s recent batting exploits in England are an apt tribute to Method.

As Genius is intuitive, it saves its bearer a lot of time. What the average John Doe can do in 10 hours, the Genius can do in 5. Let us call the five hours saved by Genius by a rather methodical and an unimaginative name as – Genius Dividend (GD) – on similar lines of the Demographic Dividend (DD).

How the GD is put to use makes or breaks a person. Lionel Messi is a Genius with the ball at his feet. And the entire world knows that. But the 2009 Champions League Final was won by a smashing header by Messi who was incidentally the shortest player on the pitch(http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=445360167242). No footballer I know works harder than Messi. He is Methodical in areas where he knows that his Genius won’t take him through. Messi from what I know has worked very Methodically on his heading and tackling. Same goes with Graeme Swann’s & R Ashwin’s spin bowling. On the other hand is a very talented, natural footballer called Mario Balotelli who in the last twelve months has been involved in dumping his girlfriend on national television, disrupting traffic after being left out of the first eleven, scoring it with hookers, throwing water balloons on cars and partying with the Italian Mafia. No wonder Jose Mourinho was fed up with him in no time.

The problem with Genius is that it almost always errs on the side of arrogance. Method on the other hand prefers to err on the side of caution. Genius needs to realize that it has to do better than Method. That it is a complete failure on Genius’ part if it gets trumped by Method. Our society values Genius a bit too much. A lot of time, effort and bandwidth is expended on discussing Genius – mostly its fads, foibles and fallacies. Genius is pampered to the extent of making it lazy, redundant. Worse, unaccountable. Genius should be made accountable for its GD.  Salivating over unaccountable Genius is a waste of time. Method is a better, more honest prospect. While Genius is not affected by talk or constructive criticism, Method is sure to respond to any attention that it gets. Method makes most of its resources. Genius is perhaps wasteful. But minimizing waste has never been our motive in life, has it? Especially given the amount of food we waste in weddings.

Tagged as:  genius · method