> Multi-domain genies like Goethe, Da Vinci (, Jobs, Feynman?)
I'm sorry but I just can't let this go without comment.
Steve Jobs was not a "multi-domain genius." He had a single, very specific genius, namely gathering lots and lots of ideas and picking the very best one. (IMO the fact that he was an asshole is probably related but not essential.) His entire career was applying this single ability, which he really was a genius of, to multiple domains. He wasn't a genius at anything about those domains per se, just at what he did once he was working in them. I mean, the fact that he had any technical knowledge at all about operating systems or computer graphics already put him in the top tier of "business guys" but that's not the same thing as a deep understanding.
For that matter, let's keep going on your list. Richard Feynmann was a smart guy but all his important work (except superfluidity in helium, I guess) was made exploring a single theme, namely how to put quantum mechanics in a Lagrangian formulation rather than a Hamiltonian. He told the story once of the event that sparked his first interest in physics as a career, and it was his high school physics teacher taking him aside and explaining the principle of least action (the basis of the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics) - he basically organized the rest of his career around understanding this principle very, very deeply. The reason he's famous in addition to being smart is that he found a new domain to apply it to, namely quantum mechanics.
My point is that while mastering a domain of application was important for these people, probably even crucial, it wasn't really the engine of their success. They first developed a single talent or interest, and then looked for a domain to apply it to.
"IMO the fact that he was an asshole is probably related but not essential."
I disagree. He did not only gather ideas; he made sure that there were good ones, too. Doing that requires probing deep, and probing deep hurts. I think he also worked on his efficiency by dismissing people who didn't have high ratios of good ideas, and wasn't afraid to ditch a good or even an excellent idea for a better one. That must have hurt those with those good ideas.
Can one do that without being coming over as an asshole? Probably, but not efficiently.
That does not mean he was an all-out asshole, though. For example, from the little I read, Jobs cared for his family. Because of that, I would call him ruthless, not an asshole.
It is a bit like being an world-class athlete. They will do whatever is necessary to improve their sporting ability. You simply cannot become best of the world by thinking "that is her only chance at the Olympics. Let her go; my chance will come", or without sacrificing something or someone in you social life. Does that make them assholes? IMO: no.
Yeah, I agree with you that it's questionable to apply that label to Jobs and Feynman - Goethe and Da Vinci deserve that much more (it's a bit unfair though because humanity's knowledge was a joke at that time, compared to current-day's). I included them with a question mark because the article mentions both of them as being able to dive into multiple domains very quickly.
I'm sorry but I just can't let this go without comment.
Steve Jobs was not a "multi-domain genius." He had a single, very specific genius, namely gathering lots and lots of ideas and picking the very best one. (IMO the fact that he was an asshole is probably related but not essential.) His entire career was applying this single ability, which he really was a genius of, to multiple domains. He wasn't a genius at anything about those domains per se, just at what he did once he was working in them. I mean, the fact that he had any technical knowledge at all about operating systems or computer graphics already put him in the top tier of "business guys" but that's not the same thing as a deep understanding.
For that matter, let's keep going on your list. Richard Feynmann was a smart guy but all his important work (except superfluidity in helium, I guess) was made exploring a single theme, namely how to put quantum mechanics in a Lagrangian formulation rather than a Hamiltonian. He told the story once of the event that sparked his first interest in physics as a career, and it was his high school physics teacher taking him aside and explaining the principle of least action (the basis of the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics) - he basically organized the rest of his career around understanding this principle very, very deeply. The reason he's famous in addition to being smart is that he found a new domain to apply it to, namely quantum mechanics.
My point is that while mastering a domain of application was important for these people, probably even crucial, it wasn't really the engine of their success. They first developed a single talent or interest, and then looked for a domain to apply it to.