Popular history likes the story of the lone genius: a single inventor who, in a flash of insight, changes the world. The light bulb, the telephone and the theory of evolution are often told this way. Historians of science tell a different story. Most important ideas emerged from many people working on similar problems at the same time, and several inventions were made independently by rival teams within a few years of each other.
This pattern, sometimes called multiple discovery, suggests that ideas become possible when the necessary knowledge, tools and demand are in place. The person remembered is often the one who patented first, publicised most effectively or built a working product that people could buy. Their contribution was real, but it rested on a network of predecessors, collaborators and competitors whose names are rarely recorded.
The myth is not harmless. It encourages institutions to fund star individuals rather than the teams and infrastructure that make discoveries possible, and it may discourage people who do not see themselves as geniuses from contributing at all. A more accurate history would not diminish great achievers; it would show how achievement depends on the conditions that a society chooses to create.