3 ms·
I'm a bit skeptical. They looked at scientists (citations), artists (painting prices), and film directors (imdb ratings). The question is whether the works tha
by elgenie 8y ago
I'm a bit skeptical.
They looked at scientists (citations), artists (painting prices), and film directors (imdb ratings). The question is whether the works that they're looking at are actually independent.
For scientists, it's rather unlikely that, having discovered a rich vein of research, a scientist would put out a single perfect paper and then never revisit the topic. Instead, I'd expect several papers exploring aspects of the research, which would get cited where those aspects are applicable; that pattern would produce several highly cited papers which look like a 'hot streak' but are actually just one piece of work.
For film directors, the Peter Jackson example the article gives is similar: the three Lord of the Rings movies are a 'hot streak' consisting of the director repeatedly putting together the same actors playing the same characters in the same story.
For artists, they're using the art market, in which prices are determined by
the opinions of critics, gallerists, and other experts herding towards a consensus about importance and quality, as a proxy for quality. A conclusion that "the stuff artist X was doing during this period was important" would naturally produce a cluster of works escalating in price.
My expectation would be that after such effects are accounted for Einstein's anno mirablis that produced four transformative and unrelated papers would once again appear to be extremely atypical.
- mkagenius 8y agoWhatever may be the contribution of actors in addition doesn't invalidate the results though. Whatever environment forms around the scientist may lead to a streak of great works. The streak remains.
- GavinMcG 8y agoBut if we're looking at things like a trilogy, or a series of papers in the same small area, it only appears to be a streak due to a (somewhat artificial) decision about divvying up the results. These sorts of "streaks" could be interpreted instead as single events, and the whole premise of the article goes out the window.
- lucideer 8y agoI think your analysis is correct but you've missed the point of this article and the research cited. The research says these hot streaks exist, you've given some examples of explanations for their existence, the two aren't contradictory. I don't think that article is making out that they're not caused by your proposed explanations.
- GavinMcG 8y agoWhat the comment points out is that the fields might be streaky ones, and that that isn't necessarily something that can be generalized. It's the choice of those specific examples that's being criticized.
- AstralStorm 8y agoThese things happen about half a century. Lagrange, Gauss and Laplace outdid Einstein a few times over. Wiener comes close but is not as famous as he did the groundwork for others. Probably more groundbreaking research you haven't heard about.