Through life we have at times encountered geniuses, or heard about geniuses in history. With modern media, we often can witness geniuses, in action on YouTube or Facebook, or described in popular magazines. But have you ever wondered where geniuses come from? How come they are geniuses?

生活中我们经常会遇到天才，或者听闻过去的天才传说。在优酷、脸书或者流行杂志等现代传媒上，我们也可以见到天才。但是你是否想过天才从何而来？他们是怎样成为天才的？

You could say, “I know a genius when I see one.” And that’s not bad, because when you see a genius, ideally you should instantly recognize that his or her abilities are quantum leaps from anyone else’s, and he/she should not be just a graduated small difference from an accomplished person, of which there are many. For example, if you see a child conduct a symphony flawlessly, we immediately know, “that’s a genius.” If we can’t see that, then maybe it is still not at genius level?

你会说：“天才我看了就知道”。那也不错，因为当你看到一个天才的时候，你会立即发现他或她的能力和其他人有天壤之别，和那些芸芸大众中稍有成就的人相比他或她并不是一星半点的区别。举例而言，当你看到一个小孩完美的指挥一曲交响乐，我们立即知道，“喔，那是天才”。如果我们当时没有看出来， 也可能就不是真的天才吧？

I am not talking about high IQ only, or an Olympic champion, or the most famous movie star. In fact, when Mensans who are in the Mensa club of highest 2% IQs are asked if they consider themselves geniuses, they all demurred. In fact, it has been famously difficult to really classify on paper what is a genius, so the “I know when I see” one definition is still pretty good. For the analytic minded I suggest that geniuses at least have to have the following 4 components. I have modified this definition, from a book I once read on genius, which I remembered well, but cannot re-locate: 1) layered complexity, 2) harmonic interrelationships, 3) elegant unity, 4) inspirational or poetic clarity. I think that’s not a bad list, as a start, which helps us analytically to classify and help guess, if we need to, that we are seeing a genius before us.

我不只是谈论高智商、奥运冠军或者非常著名的电影明星。事实上，智商高出2%的门萨俱乐部里的门萨们被问及他们是否认为自己是天才时，他们都否定。事实上很难把如何界定天才书面化，因此“天才我看了就知道”这一标准也是相当不错的。通过分析，我觉得天才至少得有下面4个部分。我从我以前读过的一本关于天才的书的内容来修订它的定义，这本书我记得很清楚，但现在找不到了。这四个部分分别是：1）层次复杂，2）和谐关系，3）优雅团队，4）灵性的、诗意的明晰思路。这是个好的列表，作为起始，它可以帮助我们必要时去分析归纳和猜测我们面前这个天才。

1. I) A genius has to be able to handle certain extremely complex matters easily, like an orchestra conductor or composer who knows many layers of complexity at the same time, precisely and logically. 2) Genius includes harmony, like all the members of the team in an extremely complex surgical operation, who have to be in harmony with each other, because, if not, the extreme surgery will fail. 3) In genius, all components and functions together have to have unity in an elegant way, otherwise even if it is layered complexity plus harmony in interrelationships, without an elegant unifying theme or direction, it still would not be super-outstanding. 4) And to be really genius, there has to be a special qualitative inspirational or poetic brilliance that comes through in perfect clarity, the awesome ahhh factor, something like only one in 10,000 people could “pull off.” For example, spectacular writers like Shakespeare are able to pull the components of their masterpieces together with layered complexity, harmonic interrelationships, elegant unity, and inspirational clarity. That’s why we call Shakespeare a genius, or someone like him. Or just use the simplest definition of “I know one when I see one.” It really is probably just as good.

• 天才就像一个乐队指挥或者作曲家，同时知道复杂事物的多个层面，处理棘手的问题时既轻松，精确又符合逻辑。
• 天才包括和谐，像一台相当复杂的外科手术的团队成员，成员间都要和谐，因为不和谐这个大手术就要失败。
• 作为天才，所有的组成部分和功能都要以一种优雅的方式组织起来，否则，就算有复杂的构建，和关系的和谐，没有优化的组织纲领和方向，也很难出类拔萃。
• 要做个真正的天才，还需要来自完美的清晰思路的灵感和诗意才华的特殊品质。可怕的“ahhh”因素，就像万个人中的一个，会脱颖而出。例如，象莎士比亚这样的大作家可以通过复杂的累积、和谐的关系、优雅的团体和鼓舞人心的清晰思路把他的杰作的各个部分连接起来。那就是为什么我们把莎士比亚和其他的和他类似的人称为天才的原因。也可以用最简单的定义“天才我看了就知道”，那也不错的。

So, no matter what the definition really is of a genius, you might really ask the even more important question, from a biologic view, where does genius come from? In fact, scientists have come to a total roadblock in understanding the origin of genius. In fact, there is no explanation at all, even though some of the scientists might themselves be considered geniuses! Nobody believes, at least deep down in their hearts, that a specific ape could really evolve into a specific human genius; some might say that evolution generically solves everything, but when faced with this problem frankly, like being asked a simple question of “how?”, meaning please explain every step of “how” this works, everyone is stumped.

因此，不管天才的定义到底如何，你应该从生物学的角度问一个更重要的问题：“天才从何而来？”事实上科学家在天才起源上也遇到了障碍。实际上，根本就没有答案，哪怕一些科学家自己都被视为天才。没有人相信，至少在他们心灵深处，相信特别的猿会进化为特别的人类天才；一些人也许会说进化论总体而言可以解释每件事，但是当他们直面这个问题，就像简单的问题：“怎样？”，解释这个进程的每一步是如何发生的，他们哑口无言了。

An ape could not become a genius, no matter how smart, it’s that simple. And millions and millions of years, how does that help to evolve a genius? It doesn’t, and there’s no way that millions and millions of years would conceivably do that. Again, the simple question, “how?” floors everyone. Nor can anyone explain the origin of genius as being a mutant, a sudden mutation that transforms an ordinary person’s genes into genius genes; or zillions of sudden mutations that transform an “ordinary person” into genius; there is not a single gene that has been found to move one through mutations into a genius, in spite of now knowing hundreds of thousands of genes and their mutations. Mutations are mutations, and no one has ever associated a genius with mutation. To call a genius a mutant is a total contradiction. Or an insult. “How?” is the scientific question, and it is here that the logic stops. This impasse results in a deafening silence among scientists when they realize they are totally stumped.

猿不能变成天才，不管它多机灵，就是这样简单。千万年过去了，对进化为天才有何助益？没有，千万年的时间确实没有帮助。再次，简单的问题，“怎样？”难住了每一个人。没有人认为天才源于突变，一个突变把一个普通人的基因变为天才基因；或者多个突变把一个普通人变为天才；尽管我们知道了成百上千的基因和它们的突变体，但是没有发现哪怕一条基因通过突变把人变成天才。突变就是突变，没有人把突变和天才联系在一起。把天才视为突变是完全矛盾的，甚至是无礼的。“怎样？”是个科学的问题，也是个逻辑上的停止。这个僵局导致了科学家们认识到他们被难住了时候的震耳欲聋的沉默。

In point of fact, geniuses can only come from our ancestors’ genes, and if you are a genius, the more pristine your ancestor genes were, the more likely was he or she also a genius, or was carrying your genius genes. Your genius genes are undoubtedly ancestral (there is no other option, when you think more about it), coming down through each generation, and the more pristine these genes could maintain themselves, without polluting effects, contaminating effects, or mutating effects, the more likely were your genius genes transmitted intact to you. So, if you are a genius, the only logical way you can be a genius is because your ancestors were geniuses, or had these genes hidden and well protected, until the right time and opportunity to be revealed, and you are reaping the brilliance of their genes. Definitely your genius genes have not come from some jungle ape, over millions and millions of years, nor a mutant!

事实上，天赋只来源于我们祖先的基因，如果你是天才，你的祖先基因就越纯，他或她更有可能是天才，或者拥有你的天赋基因。你的天赋基因毫无疑问是祖传的（你怎么想也找不出其他答案），一代代传下来的，这些基因越纯越能维持功能，没有污染，没有弄脏，没有突变，就越能将你的天赋基因原封不动的传递给你。因此，如果你是天才，你之所以能成为天才唯一的合乎逻辑的说法就是你的祖先就是天才，或者说这些基因隐藏着被保护起来，直到有了合适的时间和机会才展现出来，你就收获了这些基因的奇妙能量。可以肯定地说你的天赋基因不是来源于丛林里的猿，经历千百年的进化，也不是基因的突变。

So, to push this logic even further, it is possible to consider that many of our ancestors had genius genes in them, which over the years has likely been diluted, polluted, contaminated, and mutated, so that we have become less than geniuses. And it is possible that, even in the “general population,” the more pristine and the more ancient the gene had been, our early and ancient ancestors likely had “better and smarter genes,” than ours. Surprise!? When we think more about it, in observable science, in nature, you can really only go from more perfect to less perfect, consistent with the pesky universal 2^nd law of thermodynamics pushing events downhill.

因此把这逻辑更推进一步，推测我们很多的祖先都拥有天才基因，经年以后这些基因被稀释、被污染、被弄脏，发生突变，因此我们就不太象天才了。可能的是，甚至在芸芸众生中，基因越纯越远古，我们的早期的和原始祖先可能比我们拥有更好更聪明的基因。惊异吧！？我们在科学和自然中想得越深远，你就越会从更完美滑向不太完美，符合讨厌的宇宙第二定律热力学推下坡。

And this is why when we examine ancient history, and hear of people who designed the pyramids, or the Inca architectures, our first reaction might be, how could they do this? Aren’t they supposed to be dumb, and we are the evolved superior humans? In point of fact, the reason they could do it, is that they were likely really smart, really, really, smart, meaning they could be like geniuses! And they could do these amazing things without any IBM Watson so-called smartest machines, or any of 10s of thousands of advanced technologies accumulated over many generations that we now have! The myth that we are “smarter” than our ancestors, is mostly just a matter of technology, which we have so much of today. Where would we be, even for one day, maybe even one hour, without our cellphones, and all our modern gadgets? As to how Incas could build Machu Picchu and Egyptians build pyramids, what other reason would there be? There is no fantasy need to invoke imaginary extra-terrestrial aliens. They had simply more pristine genes, that were likely more perfect than the ones we credit them with, and likely “better” than the ones we have now.

这就是为什么当我们研究古代史，听到谈论谁建造了金字塔、印加古建筑，我们的第一个反应就是：他们是怎样干成的？难道他们不是我们所想象的是傻的，而我们进化到高级人类了吗？事实上，他们能够干这些是因为他们真的真的很聪明，他们就像天才一样！他们能够干这些奇妙的事情不需任何IBM 沃森这些高智能机器，也不需要我们经过多少代人才积累下来的高级知识！我们比我们的祖先更“聪明”的秘密在于我们今天所拥有的那么多的科技。哪怕一天，甚至一个小时没有手机，没有现代装备，我们会怎么样？至于印加怎样修建马丘比丘古城，埃及人怎样修建金字塔，还有其他原因吗？不要去联想外星人。他们仅仅是拥有更纯的基因，他们比我们想象的那些人更完美，似乎比我们现在的人拥有更好的基因。

There is an old Chinese saying, that each generation is not as good as the previous generation. “yi dai bu ru yi dai” (literally, one generation, not like, meaning less than, the previous generation). The ancients knew what they were talking about. Just think about how many mutations we each have today. A ballpark estimate is each person has 15 to 30 potentially significant mutations per person. And they keep increasing, not decreasing, as generations multiply, since new mutations start slipping in, and some hang around. So, I’m sorry, but our ancestors had it good. I’m guessing, realistically, that their mutation rate was less since, presumably they had less pollution, less contamination, less radiation, all of which over the generations probably hasn’t made our genes any better. I am an “atheist” regarding the god of evolution, and favor The Creative Genius God, since ultimately, even before the original pristine genius genes, must be the first, the original, the truly pristine, the greatest Genius, who created genius.

中国老话说：一代不如一代。古人知道他们谈论的事物。想想我们现在有了多少突变。大约估计每个人有15-30个潜在的作用重大的突变。它们在增加不是在减少，随着代代相传，新的突变悄然 侵入，而一些正在四周游荡。因此，抱歉，我们的祖先的基因是好的。我猜想，实际上他们的突变率很低，推测他们没有多少污染、很少弄脏、很少辐射，这些基因经过累代后可能没有原来好了。对进化论的上帝而言我是一个无神论的人，支持创造天才的上帝，最根本的是，最初的最纯的天才基因，一定是最早的、最初的、真正的纯净、最伟大的天才，他创造了天才。