Read on Twitter
Okay, so now I have all these dudes in my mentions defending the idea of "innate" talent and genius. Let me offer to you the counterexample of my late stepfather.
My stepdad was a brilliant medical researcher. When my son was in the neonatal ICU, the nutritional formula in his IV was one developed by my stepdad.
He programmed computers with punchcards in the 1950s, counted cards in Vegas, built beautiful custom furniture using Japanese joinery (no nails!), read the New England Journal of Medicine recreationally. Smart guy, is what I'm saying.
He also had some major limitations, especially socially. He dressed like a hobo. His generation wasn't well diagnosed for autism but he was probably on the spectrum somewhere.
When he entered the early stages of Alzheimers, it took us a long time to notice because he was such a classic absent-minded professor type. Once he gave himself scurvy - actual scurvy! - by just forgetting to eat any fruits or vegetables for a month.
His upbringing was the exact blend of privilege and deprivation that it takes to produce a genius. His parents were extremely well-educated and not very loving. He had access to education and deep unhappiness motivating him to overachieve at it.
To look at my stepdad's achievements in light of his life story and try to say that his abilities were "innate" would be asinine. I know my stepdad's story better than I know most geniuses' stories, but the tropes are omnipresent and hard to miss.
And I can look at myself, and see similar advantages and challenges, but in less extreme forms. As a result, I'm not as brilliant or accomplished as my stepdad, but also a better-rounded, better adjusted human.
