<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What is a genius?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/why-shakespeare-matters/shakespeare-the-genius/what-is-a-genius/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://politicworm.com</link>
	<description>Shakespeare authorship</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 15:40:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Shahan</title>
		<link>http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/why-shakespeare-matters/shakespeare-the-genius/what-is-a-genius/#comment-252</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Shahan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:57:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicworm.com/?page_id=1365#comment-252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re welcome, Stephanie. Thanks for including research findings from the social and behavioral sciences on what is known about the background characteristics of literary geniuses. I believe it provides some of the strongest evidence we have for Oxford, and against the Stratford man. Oxford has literally all of the characteristics one would expect to find in a great literary genius like Shakespeare, while Shakspere has virtually none of them.  We should play this up more than we have.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re welcome, Stephanie. Thanks for including research findings from the social and behavioral sciences on what is known about the background characteristics of literary geniuses. I believe it provides some of the strongest evidence we have for Oxford, and against the Stratford man. Oxford has literally all of the characteristics one would expect to find in a great literary genius like Shakespeare, while Shakspere has virtually none of them.  We should play this up more than we have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hopkinshughes</title>
		<link>http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/why-shakespeare-matters/shakespeare-the-genius/what-is-a-genius/#comment-251</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hopkinshughes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicworm.com/?page_id=1365#comment-251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks, John. Stephanie 

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, John. Stephanie </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Shahan</title>
		<link>http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/why-shakespeare-matters/shakespeare-the-genius/what-is-a-genius/#comment-249</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Shahan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicworm.com/?page_id=1365#comment-249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three additional characteristics of literary geniuses documented in Dean Keith Simonton&#039;s &quot;Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity&quot; (Oxford University Press, 1999) -- all three of which point to Oxford, and away from the Stratford man -- are as follows: 

1. Childhood in diverse locales: “Artistically talented teenagers were… more prone to have traveled to various parts of the country, and to have visited more distant locales. In addition, (they) were more likely to have lived in more than one state during their childhood and adolescence.” (There&#039;s no evidence Shakspere lived anywhere but Stratford in his childhood. Oxford lived in several locations in England.)

2. Multicultural, bilingual: “Persons who have been ... thoroughly exposed to two or more cultures, seem to have an advantage in the range of hypotheses they are apt to consider, and through this means, in the frequency of creative innovation… historian Arnold Toynbee spoke of the ‘creative minority’ who further human progress by their ‘withdrawal and return’ relative to the majority culture…Research has shown that intensive exposure to two or more different languages helps build the cognitive basis for creativity…concepts will be coded in multiple ways, enriching the associative interconnections among various ideas.” (There&#039;s no evidence Shakspere ever left England, while Oxford spent over a year traveling on the continent, especially in Italy.)

3. Birth order has powerful effects on the development of creativity. Its effects are mediated through family dynamics, and it is “functional” birth order that counts. The key point in this case ...  is that although firstborns are more likely to achieve genius status, especially in scientific fields, “creative writers are more likely to be later-born children.” (Shakspere, as the oldest surviving child in his family, was a &quot;functional firstborn.&quot; Oxford was a middle-born, with older and younger sisters.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three additional characteristics of literary geniuses documented in Dean Keith Simonton&#8217;s &#8220;Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity&#8221; (Oxford University Press, 1999) &#8212; all three of which point to Oxford, and away from the Stratford man &#8212; are as follows: </p>
<p>1. Childhood in diverse locales: “Artistically talented teenagers were… more prone to have traveled to various parts of the country, and to have visited more distant locales. In addition, (they) were more likely to have lived in more than one state during their childhood and adolescence.” (There&#8217;s no evidence Shakspere lived anywhere but Stratford in his childhood. Oxford lived in several locations in England.)</p>
<p>2. Multicultural, bilingual: “Persons who have been &#8230; thoroughly exposed to two or more cultures, seem to have an advantage in the range of hypotheses they are apt to consider, and through this means, in the frequency of creative innovation… historian Arnold Toynbee spoke of the ‘creative minority’ who further human progress by their ‘withdrawal and return’ relative to the majority culture…Research has shown that intensive exposure to two or more different languages helps build the cognitive basis for creativity…concepts will be coded in multiple ways, enriching the associative interconnections among various ideas.” (There&#8217;s no evidence Shakspere ever left England, while Oxford spent over a year traveling on the continent, especially in Italy.)</p>
<p>3. Birth order has powerful effects on the development of creativity. Its effects are mediated through family dynamics, and it is “functional” birth order that counts. The key point in this case &#8230;  is that although firstborns are more likely to achieve genius status, especially in scientific fields, “creative writers are more likely to be later-born children.” (Shakspere, as the oldest surviving child in his family, was a &#8220;functional firstborn.&#8221; Oxford was a middle-born, with older and younger sisters.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

