Quote:
Originally posted by Granamere:
A good bit of computer hackers. Tons of them are young and very talented on the computer. Not all do bad things some build websites, code games, code mods, etc. Figure out ways to cheat in games. Hey it takes a lot of know how to hack into some of the games out there.
I go by the true meaning of Hacker not the media version of it. Fixing a toaster could be hacking.
On a more classical note Galileo and Leonardo di Vinci. In my mind they were really good hackers.
Granamere
|
I disagree. I think people are devaluing the word 'prodigy', which in my mind would be translated as something akin to 'young genius'.
Now, it is very true that there are many gifted, really good computer hackers out there, but that does not mean to say that they are genius material. If all it took to be classed as a genius or a prodigy was to be "really, really good" at something when you were young, then the world would be swimming in them. In virtually every area, you get young children who are 'really, really good'.
When I hear talk of a prodigy, I don't equate it with 'really, really good', just as 'genius' (in an academic situation, for example) does not just mean someone 'really really smart'. It means someone who is noticeably outside the normal boundaries of 'really good' and 'really bad'.
Da Vinci was a genius. It wasn't because he was 'really good', otherwise the world would be drowning in Da Vincis. He was a genius because he had a spark, a special something that set him head and shoulders above the rest, completely on his own level. That is what being a genius is about, and that's what a child would have to do to be classed as a 'prodigy', IMHO. Not just be 'really good', but to be so far and above the normal level of children his age that it almost defied belief.
Now, we *do* get musicians in that category, along with mathematicians, and I may even stretch so far as to say acting, if you could convince me there was a child actor who instinctively had the talents that made him as good an actor as a gifted and practised adult. But in writing? I've read alot of work by gifted adults, and alot of work by gifted children. The one thing that strikes me about writing is that there is no line you could draw under some authors and say "These people are simply inherently far better than other writers, and no other writer could match them, no matter how much they practised."
That is what I go by. A guy could be a really talented hacker, but could another, more average person eventually get to that person's level of ability given enough time to practise, and the information he needs? If the answer is yes, then the hacker is not a genius or prodigy - just a guy who is good with computers.
Da Vinci was not just 'a guy who was good at inventions' - he came up with stuff that other people of the time could *never* have conceived of, no matter how much time they were given. That is what classifies someone as a genius or prodigy in my terms. To me, 'prodigy' is totally different from 'young person who is really good at something'
Whew, long semi-rant
