[lumost]

Alternately, the markers of what makes one a "genius" have changed.

In the past, being a genius meant having enough leisure time to spend learning what was a comparably small body of knowledge. Then spending more of that time expanding that knowledge, ultimately transmitting it through a written or spoken medium to a broad body of people.

Today we often pay attention to raw skill in a field as a proxy for "genius". We applaud a competitive coder, but this may be the modern equivalent to applauding a fast brick layer.

Are we missing the longer/deeper forms of work?

[gridspy]

> "We applaud a competitive coder, but this may be the modern equivalent to applauding a fast brick layer."

Competitive coding is still quite creative, which you contrast with brick-laying where muscle memory instead plays a big part. Perhaps compare instead to middle ages masonry experts who used custom cut rocks to build various curved outer walls and arches.

I agree that competitive coding is less creative generally than many other types of programming - often it is learned pattern matching combined with great quality execution.