本文探讨了“天才”和“蠢才”的标签背后隐藏的社会地位信号。作者指出，称某人为“天才”实际上是在赋予其高地位，反之亦然。由于专业知识难以评估且天才往往表现出“尖刺性”（即在某些领域卓越，但在其他方面可能持有谬见），这使得评估一个人的真正才能变得复杂。 public intellectuals（公共知识分子）经常在广泛领域发表观点，其言论可能涉及“神圣”或“世俗”话题。当他们的观点与“神圣”关联时，其光环会掩盖谬误；而持有“世俗”观点的人则容易被视为“蠢才”，即使他们成就斐然。文章最后还简要探讨了仇恨如何扼杀幽默感，因为仇恨者难以理解被憎恨者可能在开玩笑，这与他们对对方地位和智力的负面认知相悖。

💡 **“天才”标签实为地位象征：** 文章的核心观点是，“天才”和“蠢才”的称谓并非仅仅是对智力或能力的客观评价，而更多地是一种社会地位的宣示。当我们称某人为“天才”时，我们实际上是在赋予其高社会地位，要求他人以尊重的态度对待；反之，称某人为“蠢才”则是一种贬低地位的行为。

🧠 **天才评估的复杂性与“尖刺性”：** 评估一个人是否为天才并非易事。一方面，很多领域的专业知识难以在短时间内被大众验证（例如，重量训练的“大个子举大石”是少数例外）；另一方面，天才往往具有“尖刺性”，即可能在某个领域表现出非凡才能，但在其他方面却可能持有显而易见的谬见（如牛顿在神学上的观点）。这使得在面对一个“天才”时，我们可能看到其高地位的宣示、难以验证的成就，以及看似愚蠢的言论，从而产生质疑。

🗣️ **公共知识分子的“神圣”与“世俗”辩护：** 文章区分了公共知识分子（public intellectuals）的言论。当他们的观点与被社会视为“神圣”或至关重要的议题相关联时，他们会获得一种“光环效应”，即使有错误言论，也可能被合理化甚至忽略。而那些观点被视为“世俗”或不那么重要的人，即使取得了巨大成就，也可能因为其言论不符合某些标准而被轻易归为“蠢才”。

😂 **仇恨扼杀幽默的逻辑：** 文章最后探讨了仇恨如何影响对幽默的理解。当一个人深怀恨意时，他们难以接受被憎恨者可能在开玩笑。这是因为幽默涉及地位调节和意外性。仇恨者无法将地位赋予被憎恨者，也无法承认其智力上的意外之举，从而导致无法理解其幽默，最终“仇恨扼杀了笑声”。

Published on October 30, 2025 12:00 AM GMT

For a long time, I was confused by others belittling geniuses as morons, and glorying morons as geniuses. Then it hit me: genius is not about genius. It's about status. Duh. 

When you call someone a genius, you are making a claim that they should be viewed as high-status. And vice versa when you call someone a moron. 

Which wouldn't be a big issue when it comes to evaluating whether someone were a genius if it were not for a couple of unfortunate facts. First, it is hard to evaluate expertise, outside a few areas like weight-lifting, where everyone can verify that that sure is a big guy lifting a big rock. Which plays into the second issue: genius is spiky. You can be the world's greatest chip architect and still believe in nonsense anyone can see is false, like astrology. 

Together, this means that when someone is called a genius, you can be in a situation where:

1) Sees a bid being made to make someone high status,

2) For work whose value, you have to take on faith,

3) All the while, you see said genius spouting moronic statements. 

And then it becomes perfectly natural to reject this bid.

Only, there's a bit of an issue with this story. Why exactly are you seeing many inane statements by this supposed-genius? For instance, Newton is widely recognized as a genius, but we don't often hear of his (in retrospect) silly statements on theology. 

The answer is that the moron/genius is (often) a public intellectual. Public intellectuals opine on every topic under the sun. Worse yet, they opine on matters sacred and profane to you and I. Public intellectuals want their views to have influence. Which makes them dangerous. 

Naturally, the sacred takes precedence over mere truth. And recall that the sacred is partly characterized by being ~ every good thing, having no internal contradictions or incoherence. So we see that a public intellectual associated with the sacred gains a halo of virtue that washes away any sin. That silly remark they made? Irrelevant. 

Whereas the profane can never be good. Someone espousing a profane view, why, they must be a moron. Genius is forever out of their reach, no matter whether they've achieved feats no man ever has before. 

---

OK, that's about it for this post. But I wanted a little digression at the end on humour. Very often, it becomes impossible for haters to understand that the object of their hate could have been joking. Why is that? 

Well, because humour is composed of two things: status regulation and suprisal. If the object of your hate can regulate other people's status, that confers status on them in turn. But that's impossible, because they're literally The Devil, and how can The Devil be high-status? (Bad example, I know. I blame Milton.) And as for suprisal, that implies a certain level of intelligence. Again, one cannot ascribe a positive quality to the object of blackest hatred. So, hatred kills laughter. 

Somewhat ironic, given how profane humour can be. 

Discuss