Shakespeare and Myths About Genius

[haele]

4. Shakespeare was observant, empathic, and quick witted.

Add to that enough literacy to be able to write, and a lot of "down time" to do so - is that a form of genius?
Wouldn't Shakespeare the equivalent of Mark Twain, George Barnard Shaw, or Hunter S. Thompson, without the distractions of technology? We know about him just because the Printing Press came along in time for his Folios for his more popular plays to be printed after he died -as many of them appeared to be still politically relevant at the time.
The fallacy of ancestral infantilism comes from later generations belief that it must have been a magical spark of genius (or Gods or Aliens) to make technological advances, when for the most part, archeology and historical research shows us the "genius" - curiosity or intuition - has always been around since hominids began to figure out tools; it just takes time for technology to be leveraged upon enough to get to where we are now.
People can be outward oriented, observant, curious or imaginative. They can be Artists, creating out of what appears to be a whisper of a feeling or a word.
Or they (pretty much the majority of people)can be self oriented or followers, feeling comfortable living or working with a regular, set routine. They can vary between Artisans and Drones, working or leveraging off an existing framework or rule-set.
Or a combination of all of above.

Genius occurs everywhere, but to define the point where quickness and cleverness becomes Genius often confuses the distinction between a clever person who can bring a product to market quickly with someone who takes time and effort working out a proof on an innovation before it can be brought to market.

Is the seller who markets and profits off the product the genius, or the engineer or artist who took the time to develop and perfects/proofs the product the genius? Or are they both geniuses?

Should there be a distinction between the two if they're separate?

Haele