<html><head><style type=text/css><!--
.mcnt {word-wrap:break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:space;-webkit-line-break:after-white-space;}
--></style></head><body><div><span data-mailaddress="tara@taramayastales.com" data-contactname="Tara Maya" class="clickable"><span title="tara@taramayastales.com">Tara Maya</span><span class="detail"> <tara@taramayastales.com></span></span> , 29/4/2015 1:56 AM:<br><blockquote class="mcnt mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="mcnt"><div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">In addition, I’ve read Murray’s works on the supposed distribution of genius, invention and works of art and I don’t agree with him at all that his standards are “objective.” On the contrary, any modern inventions and modern forms of art are discounted and degenerated. So if Mozart counts as a musical genius but a rap star doesn’t and the printing press counts as an invention but a new app for the iPad doesn’t, then OF COURSE it appears there were more “works of genius” in the past than among these good-for-nothing hooligan youngsters.</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Where does he claim that? In Human Excellence he deliberately ignores recent decades for methodological reasons (the data would likely be biased in complex ways due to recency).</div><div><br></div><div>The problem of judging the importance of inventions is a pretty deep one. </div><br><div></div><br><br>Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University</body></html>