3 ms·

The problem with that paragraph is it’s vague and non-commital, like a horoscope. We can fill in the blanks to make that description fit people who we already t

by dsacco 9y ago

The problem with that paragraph is it’s vague and non-commital, like a horoscope. We can fill in the blanks to make that description fit people who we already think are intelligent, innovative, etc. As a template, it lacks precision because it’s hard to falsify, like when you survey people to see if they’re “more creative or more logical.” As a counterpoint, I also happen to know people who have done “important new things” and they mostly don’t match that description. One of the most brilliant people I’ve known seemed almost born to lead. He didn’t particularly excel at sports, but he enjoyed playing and watching them, and was on teams in high school and college. I wouldn’t describe him as a “dreamer” or as unfocused; in all things he seemed relentlessly focused. His opinion on authority is probably lukewarm, but not negative. I think that paragraph presents a false dichotomy - even of the people I’ve known who more closely match some of the other qualities, I wouldn’t describe any of them as lacking in focus nor action. It’s easy to come up with examples of famous innovators matching either description, and it’s probably easy to slip into disagreement about things like, “well what does not inclined to focus mean?” In short, it’s underspecified, and people can read into it what appeals to them.

mojuba 9y ago
> I also happen to know people who have done “important new things” and they mostly don’t match that description I'm curious what exactly that person is doing. You seem to be describing a leader but not necessarily tech/science innovator. Wilson is talking about people who invent and build innovative stuff. They can become leaders only as long as they are forced to, in order to achieve their goals (e.g. become a founder and lead a company). Lack of focus applies to things that are not interesting to these people, but then they become hyper-focused and even obsessed about their own ideas.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > I'm curious what exactly that person is doing. You seem to be describing a leader but not necessarily tech/science innovator. He’s a research scientist at a tech company. He resolved a central open problem in his field while in academia, then entered the industry to work on applied research. > Lack of focus applies to things that are not interesting to these people, but then they become hyper-focused and even obsessed about their own ideas. Maybe. But you saying this is part of my original point: is that actually what the quote means? What you’re saying sounds like the stereotypical conception of a genius, not necessarily the reality of high performing innovators. I feel like it’s hard for me focus on things that aren’t interesting to me, and I dive into things that interest me. But that also describes...essentially everyone I know, if I’m reasonably objective about it. If we can keep exchanging anecdata that supports or challenges that description, it’s no longer a description of the world, but rather just a description of particular people (and one without predictive impact). A description isn’t impactful if you have to keep clarifying its interpretation in order to make it work. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it’s fair to say your interpretation is what the quote is actually getting at, and in any case we could find obvious counterexamples for it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by dsacco 9y ago

mojuba 9y ago

> I also happen to know people who have done “important new things” and they mostly don’t match that description I'm curious what exactly that person is doing. You seem to be describing a leader but not necessarily tech/science innovator. Wilson is talking about people who invent and build innovative stuff. They can become leaders only as long as they are forced to, in order to achieve their goals (e.g. become a founder and lead a company). Lack of focus applies to things that are not interesting to these people, but then they become hyper-focused and even obsessed about their own ideas.

dsacco 9y ago
> I'm curious what exactly that person is doing. You seem to be describing a leader but not necessarily tech/science innovator. He’s a research scientist at a tech company. He resolved a central open problem in his field while in academia, then entered the industry to work on applied research. > Lack of focus applies to things that are not interesting to these people, but then they become hyper-focused and even obsessed about their own ideas. Maybe. But you saying this is part of my original point: is that actually what the quote means? What you’re saying sounds like the stereotypical conception of a genius, not necessarily the reality of high performing innovators. I feel like it’s hard for me focus on things that aren’t interesting to me, and I dive into things that interest me. But that also describes...essentially everyone I know, if I’m reasonably objective about it. If we can keep exchanging anecdata that supports or challenges that description, it’s no longer a description of the world, but rather just a description of particular people (and one without predictive impact). A description isn’t impactful if you have to keep clarifying its interpretation in order to make it work. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it’s fair to say your interpretation is what the quote is actually getting at, and in any case we could find obvious counterexamples for it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]