P(n[IQ] q) = k for all C(g1,g2) where k - 0 when q - max(IQ
t=infinite)

The probability of there being more than one great intelligence
(genius) during a generation is near zero, and of course the
probability that two ro more intelligences coincide in time and place
out of an university is near impossibility. All instances of multi
genius generation can be explained sociologically by envy. For
instance, Voltaire writing the Encyclopedia, Bacon writing
Shakespeare, Mendelssohn giving away compositions/themes to his
friends, Hegel (Kant? Fichte?) giving away ideas to other
philosophers, Heisenberg (Bohr?) in the quantum mechanics generation,
etc.

We can envision each generation as a hyperplane in the space of human
possibility where there is (at some moments in time, with certain
frequency) a high peak, global macimum, followed by other minor peaks
and a continuum varying about an average, (for the intelligence
measure, whatever it is taken).

That the works of genius get distributed, voluntarily or forcefully,
would be an expression of the universal motive of ENVY...

The main idea is that the existence of generations of geniuses is a
SOCIAL phenomenon, rather than a purely bioological one. Biologically,
the necessary conditions for an individual to exhibit what most (or
all) people would call genius are such, whatever those conditions are,
the probability of there being
more than one peak in the probability distribution of intelligence in
the whole population is zero or so near to zero that at any moment
there is only one individual who can actually be called Genius, many
other individuals who can be called geniuses and so on. Then the
probability of two geniuses coinciding in space and time *naturally*
is zero, though that doesn`t preclude the possiblity of the available
geniuses of coiciding after several social cribs, in a university, for
instance.

Then we can explain geniuses generations as the social pressure to
bring down expressions of great intelligence to a more manageable
social level that makes a group of individual plagiarize or downright
steal the contributions of the exeptioal individual. I believe
examples abound, as I pointed in the first article of this thread. A
special case is that of painters, where genius is more easily
distributed through assimilation of style after a thorough study of
technique. One great painter finds a language of expression and lots
of other painters explore the possibilities of the new language, time
selecting those who exhibit the best technique. I would have to do
some research, but I don`t remember Gris having works other than
cubist, while Picasso changed style at some point in his life.
Crosspolinization in painting must be easier than in other
disciplines, since tematic content is not as important as expression
and technique.

Everybody should agree that a Genius would makes contributions in
several disciplines. It can be advanced as a hypothesis that there are
at any moment peaks of intelligence in single disciplines which we
would call genius, while a single overall peak we call Genius that may
or may not be as `high` as the rest of the peaks. The point is that
this can be expressed as a probability distribution where the
underlying variable is the combinations of genotypes brought about by
sexual mixing of genes. This can serve the double purpose of
categorizing intelligence or human possibility as a series of
equations (a model of Man), while at the same time explaining some
phenomena that originate in the individual and then have effects in
society or population interaction. I still need more time to order
this ideas and formulate a comprehensive model or theory of man
(pompous title, but ideas are, at first, difficult to verbalize; the
equation is just to impress! Easy way to take notes, though I guess it
can be expressed more formally in a model of gene trait distribution
along whole populations).