3 ms·

The more famous an analyst is, the more likely he is to be confident in his abilities, and the less likely to second-guess himself, to analyze his analysis. Tho

The more famous an analyst is, the more likely he is to be confident in his abilities, and the less likely to second-guess himself, to analyze his analysis. Those analysts who must defend their work to superiors do a better job. The same thing seems to happen in other lines of work - when an engineer is accountable to code review, he might do better. When an author is subject to the will of an editor, his work is ultimately achieved faster, and with better quality; witness George RR Martin's speed on the first three books in A Song of Ice and Fire versus the glacial pace of the last two.

johnloeber 11y ago
Your last sentence has me doubting: I think that 'faster and better' is potentially true in measurable fields with reasonably objective criteria for success (writing code is one), but it strikes me as untrue in the arts, especially regarding experimental work, which is often all about defying the norms and expectations a reviewer is in place to enforce.
- hibikir 11y ago
  If your argument was correct, we'd see authors make their best work later in their career, when they can ignore editors and publishers, because their name alone will carry their work. I haven't done a big study in this, but it seems to me that early works are, on average, better than works made after artists have become famous. If anything, they become complacent. It's not just GRR Martin: Look at the Harry Potter series, for instance. In general, the commmercial success makes things worse.
  - eutectate 11y ago
    An alternative explanation is that famous artists struggle to replicate their initial success because it often required a large amount of luck.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean Authors often do get noticeably worse after becoming famous, though. Take the reasonably well-known example of Robert Jordan, who wrote a series of 5 great books followed by 5 lackluster books. It's hard to say he just got lucky five times in a row. And you can look at the same question another way by reading self-published (therefore, unedited) books -- I used to be quite open to reading those; bitter experience has taught me not to bother.

johnloeber 11y ago

Your last sentence has me doubting: I think that 'faster and better' is potentially true in measurable fields with reasonably objective criteria for success (writing code is one), but it strikes me as untrue in the arts, especially regarding experimental work, which is often all about defying the norms and expectations a reviewer is in place to enforce.

hibikir 11y ago
If your argument was correct, we'd see authors make their best work later in their career, when they can ignore editors and publishers, because their name alone will carry their work. I haven't done a big study in this, but it seems to me that early works are, on average, better than works made after artists have become famous. If anything, they become complacent. It's not just GRR Martin: Look at the Harry Potter series, for instance. In general, the commmercial success makes things worse.
- eutectate 11y ago
  An alternative explanation is that famous artists struggle to replicate their initial success because it often required a large amount of luck.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean Authors often do get noticeably worse after becoming famous, though. Take the reasonably well-known example of Robert Jordan, who wrote a series of 5 great books followed by 5 lackluster books. It's hard to say he just got lucky five times in a row. And you can look at the same question another way by reading self-published (therefore, unedited) books -- I used to be quite open to reading those; bitter experience has taught me not to bother.