There are two kinds of geniuses, the “ordinary” and the “magicians.” An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they have done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of where we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark. They seldom, if ever, have students because they cannot be emulated and it must be terribly frustrating for a brilliant young mind to cope with the mysterious ways in which the magician’s mind works. | |
— Mark Kac | |
Quoted by: James Gleick; in the Prologue to his book: “Genius“ | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2022 | The Arc Of Justice Sometimes Bends Too Slowly |
2021 | Still Stumbling |
Make It Your Own… (Make Your Own Kind Of Music) | |
2020 | #45: Diarrhea Of The Mouth, Constipation Of The Brain |
Not As Often As I Used To (I Gotta Get Drunk) | |
2019 | Four Buffett’s |
2018 | Change Happens |
Day 13: Ginger / Mint Relief | |
2017 | Still Removing Bricks |
2016 | Namaste |
2015 | Still Learning |
2014 | Dark Processes |
2013 | To The Last Link |
2012 | Slept In Again |
2011 | Home Again, Naturally |
2009 | Thoughts after a long day of OT… |
Dark Processes
August 9, 2014 by kmabarrett
Kevin, I have never even heard of an orthogonal complement before this minute and probably wouldn’t understand it if it were explained. Theoretically, however, I think I agree with what I think you are saying, only I would appreciate an explanation of how said magician comes out on top.
Hi Marie,
Thanks for the visit and the interesting question.
Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician myself, so I’m definitely not the “best” person to explain the concept as “mathematical jargon”, but I can try, if you’ll bear with me, to restate the concept in English.
Supposed you have two sets of things which are bordering each other but, by definition, actually have nothing in common. For example, I live next door to Barbara Streisand and Julie Andrews. (No, of course, I don’t really. This is just a story.) I listen to music and I sing in the shower. They both listen to music and sing, too. Now, I fancy myself a virtuoso in my own right, but in reality, I have neither perfect pitch (acute hearing like Streisand) nor the ability to sing (a “freaky four-and-a-half-octave range” like Julie Andrews). I am simply not in their set of musical genius – and can never hope to be, no matter how much I practice.
I can listen to the same music and songs. I can sing the same lyrics. But, I will never hear as well or sing as well.
This does not mean I can’t sing in my local church choir, enjoy music and perhaps get somewhat better with practice. But even with the “magical” 10,000 hours of practice, I will never be genius. They are in an exclusive set to me – an orthogonal complement (for this talent).
Your question is, however, ultimately a philosophical one: is a “magical genius” better than us (ordinary folks with our lesser genius) – I take it that is what you mean by asking “how said magician comes out on top.” The point of the quote, for me, was the interesting view (by a person recognized as a genius in his own right) that there are some people whom we will never understand because we lack their inspiration (the whisper of God) which allows them to see the new among the common. I don’t know that this is actually “on top” because many of the inspired geniuses I’ve read about seem to have lived tortured lives.
And after all, perseverance and persistence are their own types of genius… (And I think this may be true for both types of genius and for the rest of us “ordinary” folks, too.)
Not a very mathematical example, but I hope it conveys the idea of the quote: that we may recognize and appreciate deep genius, even when we can never hope to personally emulate (or approach) it.
Again, thanks for dropping by and commenting!
Kevin I’m so sorry I put you to all that work! I appreciate your explanation and do actually have ‘some’ understanding of your comparison, but did wonder by what capacity a magician’s ‘genius’ would be greater than genius in some other field such as math, music, or art. On the other hand I was being light headed or somewhat silly whichever you prefer. Forgive me for that. From a more logical position I can even believe that the magician could have a higher IQ although IQ (to me) is not the sole basis for genius. As you mentioned genius is often handicapped by depression and solitude and might be genius in only one area while not so knowledgeable in other areas. A magician it seems would of necessity know many ‘angles’ if they may be called that.!
Hi Marie,
LOL!
I thought you were asking me about the term “orthogonal complement”, not the metaphor of the “magician” itself. Kac is not referring to the magician being “the” genius. I believe he is paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke’s quote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” In this case, any sufficiently advanced intelligence (genius) is indistinguishable from being a magician. We can never understand the spark of insight in the non-ordinary genius, which leads us to believe it is “almost” magic.
Ahhh…thanks again. I am obviously not as well read as I should be. Interesting thoughts, which is why I read.