Successful individuals earn 'idiosyncrasy credit,' allowing them to deviate from social norms. However, observers often make the mistake of assuming these eccentricities were necessary for success. In reality, these behaviors are often tolerated or hidden until success provides the freedom to express them.
People surrounding a so-called genius, like Picasso's friends or employees at cult-like startups, often tolerate terrible behavior. They rationalize the unpleasantness by telling themselves they are part of an extraordinary, history-making experience, which creates a toxic enabling environment.
Labeling individuals like Einstein as geniuses helps commodify their legacy, turning them into brands that can sell products from toys to technology. This branding mechanism benefits heirs and marketers but may not actually foster more world-changing work or reflect the reality of their contributions.
Society celebrates figures like Edison for the 'idea' of the lightbulb, but his real breakthrough was in manufacturing a practical version. Similarly, Elon Musk's genius is arguably in revolutionizing manufacturing to lower space travel costs, a feat of logistics often overlooked in favor of visionary narratives.
Similar to how charisma is often ascribed to leaders only after their organizations succeed, we tend to label people as geniuses after a major achievement. This creates a narrative fallacy where we assume innate genius caused the success, rather than success causing the attribution of genius.
Child prodigies excel at mastering existing knowledge, like playing a perfect Mozart sonata. To succeed as adults, they must transition to creation—writing their own sonata. This fundamental shift from rote skill to original thinking is where many prodigies falter because the standards for success change completely.