IMO it's funny they've correlated 'genius' with some holistic positive-energy regimen.
I know a few people I'd consider geniuses. Actual credentialed geniuses, as in Physics PhD from an ivy. They're pretty much perpetually in a shitty mood and have the most antisocial, night-time oriented schedules possible.
I didn't study at any such high-profile universities, and my initial touching points with graduates from top universities did not exactly lead me to believe they were anything special, apart from their parents wealth. Most of them had an MA or even PHD that was paid for in high tuition fees. They did not feel anymore intelligent or educated than the average person I meet, and they did not do anything particularly interesting.
Then later I had the pleasure of spending some time with true outliers, who usually also studied at top universities. Some of them would be obsessed with their field of study, and seriously work 80 hours a week on papers and projects. Some of them seem like completely normal people, with social lives and hobbies, and then you see the work they do and are just blown away at the genius they put in there somehow.
And then there are the behemoths; you can throw any topic at them, and they will say something interesting. There are few things more mindboggling and intimidating than introducing someone to a topic you are intimately familiar with, and they basically immediately answer one of your open questions, while asking a much more interesting and deep question regarding the topic.
You can find geniuses anywhere, but in my limited experience, there's a much higher density of these kinds of people at these places. But, because of how the top universities are structured, the inverse isn't true: Going to a top university does not make you better.
A Ph.D. is something that anyone can do with a bit of patience and effort. Does that mean we should shift the bar so it means professors are geniuses? No. I don't think any arbitrary qualifications make you a genius.
I think that depends on the field and on your definition of “anyone.” I’d bet against an average 100 spatial/math IQ person being able to get a PhD in math or physics, even if hardworking and patient. They would probably be something like 2.5 standard deviations below average and while IQ is not the end-all and be-all, such a vast gap would make it extremely hard for them.
I think the bar should go much higher, somewhere around Feynman. And remember that’s low according to Feynman’s own standards: he didn’t see himself as a genius.
I don’t think they say you have to be party goer? Sleep may be compensated by daytime naps, ie recently I learned Ronaldo naps daytime in his daily schedule which was interesting to me, he won’t get Nobel price for what he loves but still he tops at his hobby.
He has a masters degree in molecular biology, another in computer science, a doctoral degree, and has spent 39 years working on learning and cognition, has been one of the main promoters of spaced repetition learning. Surely he deserves more than an "I mean, lol, right guys" dismissal?
He’s obviously wrong, but surely that would apply to anything which embeds the assumption of the blank slate, I.e. almost all modern humanities, and half of social science.
There is a story of Terence where at 4 or 5 years old or so explained math to his cousins who were 9 or so years old, but my memory may not serve me right.
I share a similar experience and I am certainly not a genius. By 4 I was doing long division and multiplication, and playing with negative and parentheses; this was the consequence of attentive parents. As I grew older my environment became significantly less supportive and even hostile. At 16 I was deep in depression and almost failed math at precalc, only for the next year to have the highest scores in honors and I was against people who also did A-levels for a year and therefore had well over a year more experience.
I genuinely believe we are a) not asking enough of our brains, and b) not providing the right environment for children to grow as school is often treated as baby sitting for parents to ~~slave away at~~ work.
>I think what people mean by "genius" is some innate ability which is much way superior (~10x) to general population.
and that ability allows them to produce work in some field dependent on that ability that is innovative and clearly superior to other works in that field. At least that's part of my definition.
>Example: Terence Tao attending university level math courses at age 9
that's a prodigy, when they achieve breakthroughs when adult is when I start to talk about genius.
Yes, agreed to. There will always be top of the top people like Droge, Carmack, Bellard, Thompson, Torvalds, etc.. (you get the point) who's innate ability will far trample the average person no matter what. But i do think the average person can do better than average if they put their effort to it. Not everyone can be the best, but it doesn't mean you cant be good either.
Not to defend the site... It leaves a bad taste for some reason...
... But the site never claimed that you'd become a genius by following the checklist. Just that you'd make a lot of progress.
The items on the checklist also do seem to be associated with many of the people that I've met who I'd call geniuses. (I've been lucky to meet a few, at least online.) For example, intellectual curiosity, stress free life, solid sleep schedule, general happiness.
It's very difficult to find an instance of a miserable genius. Misery, for unknown reasons, seems to undercut one's ability to apply their genius traits.
So although I don't think this checklist is going to transform you into a genius, it does seem to be a checklist of qualities that geniuses tend to share. I just wish it was presented in a clinical, dispassionate way, rather than a "you can too!" style.
That's an interesting counterexample, though I've often wondered what he was actually like. We only hear the tales from history, which are extremes by definition.
I imagine that pg's bio might have similar things to say, but those who knew him remember how snappy and full of energy he is. His online persona and writings give a very different impression.
As for Tao, I think he was a smart kid who's parents just pushed him in the right direciton. If his parents weren't involved and he started math at a later age, I'm sure he would still be great, just not as prolific as he is right now.
So its a mix of genetics and experience in my opinion.
Aleister Crowley had some thoughts on geniuses (specifically religious geniuses, but he believed genius didn't end there) and how any human being can attain towards this level of consciousness: https://sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/aba1.htm
Specifically, from the Q&A, he says:
> Q. What is genius, and how is it produced?
>> A. Let us take several specimens of the species, and try to find some one thing common to all which is not found in other species.
> Q. Is there any such thing?
>> A. Yes: all geniuses have the habit of concentration of thought, and usually need long periods of solitude to acquire this habit. ...
His training system -- the A∴A∴ -- is designed to lead people to their genius. Interestingly, it is very similar to this checklist: it teaches self-discipline (by having to follow a specific training program); studying great people and works of philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics, etc; controlling emotions; controlling thought (including constraining it to a single idea); writing down ideas; etc.
I think Crowley goes much further and was more rigorous in his approach to applying the ideas listed. In his view, you don't _become_ a genius through this work, but connect to the genius that is already inside everyone. Connecting to this Genius and finding out your goals in life is the key to a joyful life -- or, as TFA says, 'Establishing a clear goal for your life should be a priority'.
While I see you're a thelema cultist, I would hardly take anything a sociopathic, sadistic, spoiled, trust fund brat like Crowley has to say with any seriousness. Crowley wasn't some brave misunderstood hero, he was a delusional twisted pervert with a power complex.
> Which brings us to the most important principle on HN: civility. Since long before the web, the anonymity of online conversation has lured people into being much ruder than they'd be in person. So the principle here is: don't say anything you wouldn't say face to face. This doesn't mean you can't disagree. But disagree without calling names. If you're right, your argument will be more convincing without them.
> A majority of people carry the potential to become a genius. There are factors that are far more important than genes and IQ. I have compiled a checklist that I believe should work, when followed. All you need to begin with is to be free and reasonably healthy. I try to list the factors that prevent many people from accomplishing their greatest potential. The list begins with the stumbling blocks that are most likely to occur on one's road to genius. Some factors need to be balanced against each other, and some factors overlap.
There seems to be a gap between people who are solidly competent in a domain and perhaps somewhat more creative and insightful than average, and extreme gamechangers who completely transform an existing domain and/or invent a completely new one.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the author seems more of the former than the latter.
That's not a bad goal in itself, but I'm always wary of people who seem to be applying the latter label to themselves.
The author missed a prerequisite: have rich parents. Because the low stress life is made far more effortless via the provision of unlimited leisure capital.
Meh I'd say having middle class parents is probably better.
Anybody who's in the US middle class can have a low stress life. Most don't because they want things. (Mostly they want to compete with people they view as their peers.)
I know plenty of people in the lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and the rich. You’re deeply out of touch with what it’s like to be in the middle class and the rich if you think it’s lower stress to be in the middle class. The rich self-impose their stress and could give it up if they wanted to. (And I watch those who do and they take it very easy) The middle class don’t impose their stress, it’s an externality they cannot control.
Might be more of ignorance than anything else. Certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up. I was acutely aware of my parents financial situations and how they were making poor choices coupled with lack of ability to increase income.
What specifically makes you say that middle class people have highly stressful lives? I don't have that association, personally, but maybe I'm out of touch.
I'd figure this last year would make it kinda obvious but ok. Maybe: Living paycheck to paycheck - risk of eviction - foreclosure moratorium - no job due to COVID? That's basically not something that happens to people who are rich because they don't work in restaurants, retail, tourism, etc. unless they're the ones running it... which means they have significant capital and don't really risk being thrown out of their home or having to sell their home, etc.
There's lots more but I mean - surely that's sufficient to get the idea across?
Hey, no need to have an attitude. The source of the discrepancy turns out to be that we define "middle class" differently, which was one of my leading suspicions.
Not sure what country your experiences are based on, but I consider American middle class to usually be salaried people who are homeowners (maybe with mortgage, fair enough), so several of the points you raised don't apply. That said, of course, it's a pretty fuzzy category.
Please try to behave nicely on HN. There is no need to insult others here (for instance, by saying that they don't get something that is "obvious").
This is why self-guided, passion-interest driven based learning without pressure to perform (test) or work is one underrated aspect of what UBI tied to inflation will allow for; if even just 1 out of 1,000 people choose this path of lifelong learning via non-laid out path avoiding relative indoctrination could lead to profoundly stronger society and insights.
Safety, but not comfort, is what nurtures genius. It allows the individual to see the value of fruitful effort. Total destitute feels totally hopeless. A safe existence with a visible path upward acts as a guiding light.
The thing is you can't see a trust fund by looking at people. It's a trope that people who have trust funds don't work but is there any evidence that is a common outcome?
It’s common in my circle. They don’t take up the normal jobs they would’ve otherwise. Instead of high pressure roles that would resemble their background better they role play as a middle class earner while being FI.
There is a reversion to mean among the children of highly successful people. Just because your dad made $100M in business doesn't mean you are that capable; you probably aren't (statistically speaking). Taking a "middle class job" is probably the best that some children of the rich can do.
Strangely, I have found that stress, or more accurately crises, have stimulated my creativity and shook me out of tired old modes of thinking more than anything else. Perhaps long lasting, low grade stress is bad, but the occasional spike is good?
It does not seem much different from other aggregators. Also, just a list of facts is strictly worse than a list of facts with some debate around them. Reading a debate saves time on internalizing consequences.
At least that's how I am rationalizing reading Hacker News. It covers both news like Afghanistan and computer science.
Serious question to self: How often do you need those updates? And to what depth? If you’re in Afghanistan, you probably wouldn’t miss what’s going on. If you’re not, and you’re prioritizing “being a genius”, should you care?
Would not this depend on what you are trying to be a genius in? Outside of the disaster areas, political stuff probably does not matter, but your field progress might.
> If you’re in Afghanistan, you probably wouldn’t miss what’s going on.
In this particular instance you certainly could miss something important in time. The chances to escape there probably dropped rapidly.
> Instead of memorizing 20x20 combinations, you limit yourself to a standard 10x10 table (just 25% of all combinations)
Actually, 26% (55/210). You say 25% and nobody notices. You say 26% and you convey a message you understand things on a deeper level (still shallow but much, much better than no level at all). I'd pick 27%, though.
Health (comprehending stress, sleep, fitness, disease, etc.), and regimen, combined with a good mindset/ philosophical orientation, and good (perhaps in an unconventional sense) education, are certainly all important and necessary prerequisites for peak intellectual performance. On the other hand "genius" is necessarily defined in relative terms, and is rare, although its specific numerical rarity may vary, even greatly. "Genes and IQ" certainly also present hard limits. The author seemed to be wanting to be P.C. by denying this, but ended up doing the opposite (egregiously) by grouping the two traits together as one! The invocation of the concept of "genius" itself is "problematic" in a similar ironic way.
This site looks pretty interesting and some ideas resonate with me, but it also seems to be a bit of a rabbit hole, full of unfamiliar jargon and depending heavily on self-citation. Can anybody vouch for the value of digging into this?
Yes, go ahead and read deeply. In spite of the chosen TLD, disagreeing with any piece of advice doesn't accidentally invalidate other ideas like some guru's all-or-nothing self-contained theory. There is also no luring you into signing up for a mailing list to offer you products or courses.
> Never trust your memory to keep your new ideas. Once you come up with an idea, write it down instantly.
I disagree with this bit of advice very much. In my experience if an idea is a good one it will occur to me again. Very often in a more refined form. Of course if you are working on something actively feel free to write it down. But when not actively working on a given problem? My brain is a good place for ideas to percolate in. Besides I have a ton of ideas. It would be silly to treat each little thing as a precious resource like a miser.
Supermemo supposed to have a better spaced repetition algorithm from what I've read.
Supermemo also supports incremental reading; a very intriguing concept. Of course all of this comes together bundled in a windows app with no mobile support. Anki ecosystem is much easier to use.
Supermemo has some proprietary algorithms but it's close enough. There's little reason to switch from Anki and Anki generally has the biggest community. If you are worried about the minor differences in algorithms, realistically you might benefit as much or more from finetuning your Anki intervals instead.
“Why did you come in so late today?” “I read a blog post that told me it would help me become more of a genius if I ‘throw away my alarm clock’, so I did!” “Well I have great news for you: You can show up at the unemployment line whenever it suits you, genius.”
This is nice, but the biggest issue I have with all this is how 'genius' is described as if it's synonymous with being holistic. I know some smart people, a few of whom I'd probably consider geniuses too. By no means does that mean they're healthy though, I often catch them in bouts of self-loathing, messy offices, and even turning to vices when things get rough. Make no mistake, they were still sharp as a tack, but they're also human.
This is a good checklist for people who want to self-improve, but for being a genius? I'd argue there's quite a bit more at play than just your frame of mind.
It's the old stable genius versus unstable genius situation. For genius to have a place, it has to not hurt the genius in any way.
So much genius comes with some sort of cost to the genius, in some form, like a vice as you say (e.g alcohol abuse), or the genius' mental health suffers since solitude and genius go hand-in-hand.
Or bit less, as the case might be.
Sometimes it's easy to mistake expertise for genius too.
Ultimately true talent cannot be earned, just wasted or ignored.
One problematic thing in the list is about passion and goals.
You can become an expert or even a great, but passions and goals change for a variety of reasons.
A common one that will stop achievement dead on is being passionate for your family, or wanting to do something good or memorable for the world that does not align with what you do.
Changing your mind is the most human thing one can do.
Many a genius did not have a clear passion, but they had a different drive, such as solving a puzzle or wanted pure knowledge, or liked recognition; combined with grit and creativity and a fair degree of luck that alone can get one to genius.
Material concerns are more sure to torpedo genius than stress or even disability.
Ugh, sorry for being jaded, but at some point I just become very tired of more anodyne self-help advice packaged under a new title. I mean, "get good sleep", "reduce stress" - this is obviously not bad advice, but it's the equivalent of telling overweight people to eat less and exercise more, point being if just giving that advice actually changed people's behavior we'd all be athletic and svelte.
> but it's the equivalent of telling overweight people to eat less and exercise more, point being if just giving that advice actually changed people's behavior we'd all be athletic and svelte
What else would you tell overweight people?
People will change when they want to - and at that point the advice becomes actionable
There is plenty of data about what is more effective in getting people to actually change their behavior, e.g.
1. Find a workout or weight loss buddy that so you can help keep each other on track. There is loads of evidence that social connections and pressures can be very helpful.
2. Don't try to make drastic changes all at once, for example for many people doing something like completely getting rid of soda and replacing it with lightly sweetened tea can make a huge difference, and that's usually a lot easier to do than, say, never eat out at restaurants.
3. Do something that you can easily integrate into your routine instead of doing something that feels like you have to do "extra" to start. E.g. if you commute to work, if possible, park a half mile away from your office and walk the rest of they way.
All of this is much better advice than "eat less".
Those aren't "gimmicks", especially since many of them (the value of social connections when making a goal in particular) are backed up by a lot of data on their effectiveness.
What's insanity is to keep saying the same thing over and over and expecting you'll get different results. American society is constantly inundated with the message of "eat less, exercise more", yet somehow we are fatter than ever.
Tell them to go on walks while they read/listen to podcasts. Lots of people have lost 50 lbs during the pandemic just realizing if they walk for 1-2 hours a day their bodies get smaller.
advice /can't/ change people; people can only change themselves. Common-sense advice only serves to affirm to people that their own instincts about what's wrong are correct. The "how" of making a change is more difficult, but also specific to the individual.
I think most genius ideas go unrecognized or are actively fought against because people prefer the status quo just out of familiarity or because it's what everyone else is doing.
But people are also highly social animals and often operate in hierarchies. So the ability to effectively position oneself socially seems key to having genius ideas or cognitive abilities recognized. That or having a friend with those characteristics.
If nothing else with reference to a commonly cited trait of genius being that it have its head in the clouds.
That, or I suppose to the idea of someone who takes the care to compile (what I assume to be) a checklist of traits of genius, should fail to consider the basic necessity of ensuring it remain available so that people can read it. But perhaps they are the same.
Prescriptivism seems as footless here as in any other attempted application to the vernacular, but if it helps ease your mind at all, OED has the adjectival sense in which I used it above, and in which it's frequently seen here and elsewhere.
A bit discouragingly, everything there about getting rid of stress and sleep appear to be immutable parts of my career. It remains a shame I've not really got anywhere to go.
Have you tried going 'inside'? Meditation can teach you to observe your own states as an outsider and affect them, kind of like hooking up a debugger to your own mental 'programs'. Once you notice yourself feeling stressed, firing up the debugger (AKA utilising your mindfulness training) and sorting through the contents of your mind can help you defuse it. Maybe you can even change a variable using your 'debugger' to improve the state of your 'programs' ;)
It also helps you sleep, because the difficulties sleeping are controlled/helped by learning mindfulness.
One way to hack stress is to consider that there's some things that happen that are inherently stressful, and then there's the way we perceive or respond to it that can also add to that stress. I have found meditation and reframing the situation to be powerful tools for that.
With sleep, one might not be able to get more hours or sleep, but it's possible to improve the quality of sleep. For example I recently was not sleeping well, was diagnosed with a sleep apnea, and now using a CPAP machine allows the sleep I do get to be better quality. Other things: journal and meditate before bed to calm the mind, stretch/yoga/qigong to relax the body
There is something important here that will be hard for me to articulate. The main point is that if you read through this list it’s not all nonsense you should avoid because “pseudoscience“. To put it in other words - it’s not confirmed not working facts, they are more of anecdotally confirmed working facts, which have not bad chance of becoming scientifically confirmed facts. The list is highly subjective snapshot of rituals occupying spectrum of real facttnes level. Just because item X is nonsense descent imply that item Y is also nonsense.
All that to say that evaluation of this list should be more thorough as opposed to total acceptance or total rejection.
I have similar problem when discussing Rudolf Steiner schools/“sects”(?) - they are really good people doing really good things compared to status quo - I love buying food from their shops because I know they have incomparable quality to what I can get at nearby shops (meat, eggs, veggies etc), they grow them in harmony (no depleting monocultures, pesticides etc). At the same time I know Steiner is pseudoscience labelled - I’m aware of it but it doesn’t subtract enough from good parts.
What I’m trying to say it’s not all bad period, it’s more nuanced.
I think the term psuedoscience has been shifted to mean things like snake oil and alternative medicines. While that doesn't apply to this case, I think we can still call this psuedoscience. It's trying to make scientific-ish claims without any of the rigor behind science.
It's like if your mom told you that turmeric powder works great to cure certain ailments and then 5 years later a study comes out which proves her right. Mom's cure was still psuedoscience until the research is actually done.
Wow. This guy has all the hallmarks of a self-proclaimed guru. Spouting psuedoscience while giving a bunch of excuses for why his psuedoscience is valid in case any detractors come for him.
Wow. That's an uncharitable interpretation. The way I see it it's just a guy sharing his ideas on his personal website while making it clear that the ideas are not to be taken as scientific claims.
> I am no guru, but when .guru domains became available, my colleagues suggested that only I could own that domain. We bought supermemo.guru in February 2014, and I accepted the position of the guru on the understanding that the world of SuperMemo is so specialist that it may indeed be hard to find a better SuperMemo Guru.
I am in favor of approach "if it is some BS it is all BS".
Because a lot of con artist use one or two scientific facts that are for real just to attach a wagon of horseshit to it.
You also probably don't need "super guru" checklists because becoming a genius is not checking off tasks. Just like reading Warren Buffet biography is not going to make you good investor.
I'm not willing to dismiss all of a source based on incidental errors. I may even be willing to allow some major factual or rational flaws where a piece does point out some salient point, or serves as a foundational resouce of some sort. (You could include virtually all of mythology, fables, philosophy, and/or religion in this description.)
Where a source is clearly making a motivated attempt at deception, or where it shows a clear ambivalence to truth (Frankfurt's definition in "On Bullshit"), and there's nothing in the source that's not otherwise available ... my tolerance drops sharply.
This is where the intentional deception of a tremendous amount of narrative (I hesitate to even call it "information") deserves a death penalty.
The attitude expressed by supermemo.guru seems to fall squarely in this camp.
I address the point of intellectual honesty and journalistic standards, of admitting and publicly noting errors, in this somewhat tedious subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28261042
All attempts at uncovering the truth will lead to error and mistakes.
The difference is that the honest:
- Are aware of this.
- Own their mistakes.
- Correct them.
- And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others.
Bullshit wrapped in a veneer of truth sells far more readily than the unadulterated variety. All the better if there's only one specific bullshit point that's being injected --- why go through the risk and trouble of fabulating more than is absolutely necessary.
True, but it’s hard to imagine that you are seriously suggesting that books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material, when they make mistakes:
- Own their mistakes.
- Correct them.
- And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others
Every last mistake and error cannot be corrected or retracted. But serious, responsible, ethical journalism makes a very earnest attempt to correct errors when they are brought to the publication's attention. And not to double-down on insisting on being wrong.
In the case of newspapers this seems historical, and not true in the present.
In the era where the paper was printed in limited numbers on a fixed schedule, a printed set of corrections was somewhat meaningful, although still inadequate.
Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction.
There is no reason for a newspaper page not to have an edit history other than to hide errors, or because they just don’t care enough.
You wrote: Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction.
I respond:
Corrections: Aug. 21, 2021
Corrections that appeared in print on Saturday, Aug. 21, 2021.
It's unclear to me what definitions of "today", "just an artifact", "without indicating", or "not the same as a correction" mean in your usage, but they don't fit the actual facts of the universe I seem to be inhabiting.
You ignore what I said - that this change log is obviously an artifact of the print era, and is unusable unless you actively check it against everything you read, which is clearly impractical.
In no way does it constitute an honest acknowledgment of error.
You might as well just throw in the towel now. Similar to how you said it was unclear how they were defining certain phrases, the same user in the last day has also been intentionally vague with me in a separate argument, has continually avoided the actual question(s) being posited, and resorted to gaslighting, which is basically what they're doing now; insisting that a page called "corrections", including descriptions of the corrections, isn't "correcting them".
Except that, ya know, it's a correction, so it does correct something. Once again you are intentionally inaccurately or poorly describing something in an effort to drive home your point. I am not going to be engaging with you any further.
Repeating a falsehood, regardless of the Bellman's assertion, does not make it true.[1]
You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already.
If I have made a false statement, you would be able to quote it.
Do you think that the corrections log actually undoes the impact on people who read the false report?
Do you think most people check that log to see if the previous articles they read have been corrected?
The claim you made was that they own their mistakes and correct them.
If your argument is that they quietly admit their mistakes somewhere very few people look, then I will agree to that. If you can find me denying that, you can quote me on it.
My claim is that this doesn’t correct the mistake. When you misinform someone, the only way to correct the mistake, is to let that person know, and give them the right information.
The corrections page might have been a good faith effort at doing this in the print era, but it definitely doesn’t work in the digital era.
More importantly, what you are referring to as ‘corrections’ are simply edits they make. That has nothing to do with owning one’s mistakes.
They can easily be wrong about or present something in a distorted way, and that won’t make it into a ‘correction’. I don’t see how you can call this behavior ‘owning one’s mistakes’.
Bear in mind, we are commenting on a post by Piotr Wozniak, who does in fact own his point of view, and explains exactly why he says the things people accuse of being pseudoscience.
> You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already.
It would be better for you to address the argument rather than engaging in ad-hominem. That is the usual guideline around here.
> I charted my own infections from the year 1980. My worst year was 1995. In 1995, I had two major SuperMemo projects on my head, and also worked over my PhD. This was a year of stress and chaos. Naturally that resulted in reduced immunity. That single year, I had 7 cases of cold that resulted in 31 days of reduced productivity. The fact that I did not bother to take breaks from work must have had its contribution as well.
> In the year 2000, there was a major drop in infections and the problem of lost productivity disappeared entirely by 2003. There are only 3 factors that could have produced those dramatic shifts. In the year 1999, I dropped all forms of sleep regulation, esp. the alarm clock. In the year 2003, I added weekly winter swimming and weekly half-marathon in the woods. No other solid explanations come to my mind.
Could it be the lack of exposure to university students?
I know a few people I'd consider geniuses. Actual credentialed geniuses, as in Physics PhD from an ivy. They're pretty much perpetually in a shitty mood and have the most antisocial, night-time oriented schedules possible.