We misuse the word. We call someone a genius when they are intelligent, a product genius when it performs well, an idea genius when it is new. But intelligence operates within a system. Genius changes the system itself.
Not every disruption qualifies. Crises and accidents alter outcomes, but genius is intentional. It is design that makes the previous arrangement of incentives inefficient.
In economics, incentives shape behavior and behavior shapes institutions. Institutions feel permanent until something quietly renders them unnecessary.
Genius lowers the cost of coordination across domains. When coordination becomes cheaper, power moves. Individuals gain leverage relative to hierarchy. Outsiders gain leverage relative to incumbents. What once required scale, permission, or capital becomes accessible. Constraints that felt structural are revealed as friction.
Most things praised as genius are optimized within the current equilibrium. They perform brilliantly under existing assumptions. True genius changes what is scarce and what is abundant. It shifts who can act and how quickly. It does not merely win the game. It alters the game's architecture.
The change compounds. Adoption increases usefulness. Usefulness increases adoption. Feedback loops accelerate. What began as optional becomes default. What once dominated survives only by habit.
You know you are near genius when intelligent people begin defending constraints that quietly stopped mattering.
So the question is not who is genius. The question is whether something reorders coordination and redistributes agency in a way that compounds. If it does not, it may be impressive. But it is not genius.