[k__]

Comparing you to some geniuses in the field isn't gonna help.

Sure Mozart was better that Salieri, but there is just one Mozart.

Companies are always talking about how they just take the best, but in the end they have to settle with what the market gives them.

[merrywhether]

This reminds me of a time when a hiring manager said something along the lines of “We’re trying to find Michael Jordan, not Scottie Pippen.” My colleague and I were pretty shocked by this, since Pippen was also a great Hall of Fame basketball player, just not one of the top 3 players of all time.

[etblg]

All companies want to fill their ranks with the Michael Jordans of the world, but there was only one Michael Jordan (that's why we call him by his name), and he wasn't even drafted first overall, he went third. The people who beat him were another Hall of Famer, and then some guy you've never heard of.

[avip]

As an nba fan I find that qoute really misplaced. It's not like you "settle" for a Pippen? He's probably a top 50 player ever.

[GCA10]

Continuing the analogy, Michael Jordan doesn't get to display his full Jordan-ness on the court unless he's got a teammate like Pippen who creates opportunities and solves problems that will be huge energy drains on Jordan if only Jordan is there to solve them. (Guarding opponents; salvaging something out of busted plays, etc.)

Finding stars and paying them a lot is pretty easy. It also isn't necessarily the path to great success, especially if you can't build a coherent rest of the team. Just ask Allen Iverson.

[C1sc0cat]

And Basketball is team game you need a full squad not just one star

[TheCoelacanth]

Especially stupid because the company that hired Michael Jordan literally did hire Scottie Pippen.

They are basically saying they want the best performing person in the world but don't want to give them the supporting team that actually makes their exceptional performance possible.

[rconti]

"Who coached the majority of Michael Jordan's championship winning teams?"

(the name is actually on the tip of my tongue, surprisingly)

- whether or not the hiring manager knows the answer:

"You're not him"

[WWLink]

The company has to settle for the fact that they're not the top 3 companies of all time, too. XD

[injb]

I don't know why this was downvoted, but you're right. Geniuses of that level are rare and extremely lucky. It's like lamenting that you'll never be financially independent because you didn't win the Megamillions lottery. Only a tiny minority of people have that kind of luck and no one has any control over it.

[scoutt]

I agree there is a degree of luck in some people, but I'll be wary about the term genius.

Personally, when someone says Genius, in some contexts, I take it like an excuse to justify the existence of people that excel doing something, just because they are born-geniuses.

The fact that some of these geniuses dedicated their entire lives to improve themselves (being it by practicing on an instrument or doing math, for example) is left aside, and the justification for doing practically nothing to achieve excellence is because "that guy/girl is a genius and I am not".

PS: In the office that justification comes as being an expert: when someone doesn't know how about something, it's because some other person is an expert. When the boss asks the lab manager "how does that WiFi module work?" the answer is "let's call X because she is an expert", when the manager should already know how that works.

[EpicEng]

Genius is, in my experience and from what I know of history, is something people are born with though. I've met (and worked with) exactly one person I would place near the designation of "genius". I wasn't under the impression that he didn't work hard to gain knowledge, but he just had a different way of approaching problems.

I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I could be struggling with something for hours that he could break down in a way that just never occurred to me. So yes, he put in the time, but it was his thought process that made him great, and I'm not convinced that's something that can be taught to great effect.

[bradknowles]

I've been fortunate to know a number of people that I consider to be true geniuses. My wife's entire family is extremely talented, but that's not the only source.

The thing I've noticed about genius is that it's just part of who you are. It flows out of your pores. You work the kinds of hours and achieve the kinds of things you do, simply because you are driven to do so, and could not be otherwise.

If you're not a genius, then no amount of practice or experience will make you one. You can get better, sure. But to be a genius, you have to start out life as a genius.

Of course, there are many types of genius, in many different areas. But all the geniuses I know fit the above description.

OTOH, our culture does throw around the term much too easily. Many people seem to mistake lots of practice or experience for genius, which is understandable because many geniuses do seem to have a lot of practice and experience. But in a true genius, the cause and effect is reversed for practice and experience versus the results achieved.

I am most definitely not a genius. But I do have a fair amount of practice and experience in certain fields.

[scoutt]

Exactly. Some people just have it. I was referring to easy-labeling people genius.

[EpicEng]

Agreed, it's thrown around way too frequently.

[esch89]

It's true. The hiring market is a market, which means companies compete with each other to attract the best talent they can - and sometimes they lose out on that competition.