5 ms·

Old Masters and Young Geniuses

30 points by hhm 18y ago

henning 18y ago
I hope no software/web design people see analogies to creative web work and think that if they didn't get hired by Google at age 15 or they haven't been doing this stuff since 1994 that they have no chance of doing quality work. In my experience the single greatest determinant of the quality of my work is the level of involvement/effort/passion I invest in it. I definitely subscribe to the 1% inspiration 99% perspiration school.
- DarkShikari 18y ago
  I find that its mostly inspiration--but that inspiration itself comes from perspiration. I've come up with simple but elegant ideas that turn out to be quite effective when applied, and the adaptation of idea to practice turns out to be relatively trivial. But in reality, I came up with that idea through a great deal of conscious and subconscious thought as a result of experimenting with hundreds of other ideas that failed. The "spark of inspiration" rarely is something that happens in a second, even if it seems that way initially.
prospero 18y ago
The transcript of Malcolm Gladwell's talk (http://www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf http://www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf) is a lot more interesting than the blog entry that's discussing it. It's not so much about age (i.e. you must be either 20 or 60 to make something great), but that there are two fundamentally different approaches to creation. The first is immediate and ex nihilo, the execution of a clearly defined idea that is fundamental to the artist's way of thinking. The second is slow and incremental, a blind walk through an enormous search space, until the artist finds something that resonates with them for reasons they can't properly explain. I could probably make some sort of startup vs. 37Signals analogy here, but my heart's not in it, so I'll leave it to someone else.
- huherto 18y ago
  Good! If you cannot be a genius at 20 you still have 40 years to become a master.
  - prospero 18y ago
    No, my point was that age is a red herring. The only binary distinction being posited here is that some people know what they're looking for, and other people find it.
alaskamiller 18y ago
I remember reading this Wired profile of David Galenson from 2006 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html The book sounds interesting.
13ren 18y ago
I think the "young genius" is a function of their times: the area was ripe for a revolution, and it just needed someone to say it. Like some discoveries. It's easier to see it (and go with it) for a less experienced person, who is less invested in the status quo and less risk averse. At other times, the same young person's risks would achieve little. OTOH, anyone who is actually there, who actually does it, who is an instrument of a revolution, should be celebrated as if they created it from nothing. Because if we don't encourage it, we'll have less of it. And any person, no matter what their achievement, can be dismissed as a mere agent of the environment - an inhuman and nihilistic view.
- lliiffee 18y ago
  I think you are on to something. For example, many people see research in the sciences as the progress of a few unbelievable geniuses, with 99% of people contributing nothing and wasting their time. So, for example, progress in Physics is just waiting for the next Einstein to show up to make the next insanely brilliant advance. However, I think that is wrong. Einstein was obviously a huge genius, but with an IQ of 160, I calculate there are currently about 9 million (=3 billion * .003) people walking the earth with higher ones. The stars have to be properly aligned so that it is possible to make such an advance. It is no coincidence that Einstein's discoveries were made so soon after other physicists make the contributions necessary for them. If he hadn't done it, it would have been somebody else.
- wazkomoney 18y ago
  i am the young genius hacker !
Prrometheus 18y ago
>The book was recommended to me by Malcolm Gladwell -- which means that many of you can now form your opinion of it without even reading it I'm going to guess it's a book with interesting ideas that is driven primarily by theory and anecdote.
aantix 18y ago
You can listen to this same presentation here : http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306onco_covers_gallery http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306onco_cover... If I recall correctly, Gladwell starts off the night by telling the stories of Fleetwood Mac vs The Eagles. Fleetwood Mac created 13 (?) albums before they got a hit. The Eagles first album was a smash.
aaronsw 18y ago
Tufte debunked this book in Beautiful Evidence. It even led him to coin the term economisting (emphasis on con and mist). Draft: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001Zl http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0... When I first read it I remarked that he was going after too easy a target -- surely nobody would take this stuff seriously. And yet, since then, all sorts of people have.
- antiismist 18y ago
  That link had the best thing I read all week in it. Thanks for sharing.
- zasz 18y ago
  Thanks for the link. Reading it, I couldn't believe that I and the others commenting here swallowed this book's thesis so easily and uncritically.
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    I suspect the absence of quantities in the book is more a product of the book publishing process than of any intent to deceive. Recall that Stephen Hawking was told that 'every equation will drop sales by half.' But a lack of presented evidence doesn't imply that the thesis is wrong. Once you look, you find that the theory corresponds much more nicely to reality than the theory of genius commonly held: namely, that early success is a good predictor of later, great works. From what I know of history, in mathematics, art, architecture, music, physics, leadership, hacking, dance, there truly are distinct examples of prodigies and late bloomers. And it's enlightening to hear how he describes the difference in creative approach. For example, when I was a kid, the production of my work was only a hindrance. I had a concept or idea or visualization that I wanted to communicate, and I would tell people, literally, that I wish only that I had 'a projector in my head'. But many people, who's work I've come to respect deeply, rely instead on the resistance of their medium, the feedback of an audience, the taste of what they create, rely upon pursuing little accidents they stumble upon along the way as clues to help them find the form they seek. And I can tell just how different it is from a conceptual approach, and how patient and observant and diligent one must be to achieve its mastery.

30 points by hhm 18y ago

I hope no software/web design people see analogies to creative web work and think that if they didn't get hired by Google at age 15 or they haven't been doing this stuff since 1994 that they have no chance of doing quality work. In my experience the single greatest determinant of the quality of my work is the level of involvement/effort/passion I invest in it. I definitely subscribe to the 1% inspiration 99% perspiration school.

DarkShikari 18y ago
I find that its mostly inspiration--but that inspiration itself comes from perspiration. I've come up with simple but elegant ideas that turn out to be quite effective when applied, and the adaptation of idea to practice turns out to be relatively trivial. But in reality, I came up with that idea through a great deal of conscious and subconscious thought as a result of experimenting with hundreds of other ideas that failed. The "spark of inspiration" rarely is something that happens in a second, even if it seems that way initially.

prospero 18y ago

The transcript of Malcolm Gladwell's talk (http://www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf http://www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf) is a lot more interesting than the blog entry that's discussing it. It's not so much about age (i.e. you must be either 20 or 60 to make something great), but that there are two fundamentally different approaches to creation. The first is immediate and ex nihilo, the execution of a clearly defined idea that is fundamental to the artist's way of thinking. The second is slow and incremental, a blind walk through an enormous search space, until the artist finds something that resonates with them for reasons they can't properly explain. I could probably make some sort of startup vs. 37Signals analogy here, but my heart's not in it, so I'll leave it to someone else.

huherto 18y ago
Good! If you cannot be a genius at 20 you still have 40 years to become a master.
- prospero 18y ago
  No, my point was that age is a red herring. The only binary distinction being posited here is that some people know what they're looking for, and other people find it.

alaskamiller 18y ago

I remember reading this Wired profile of David Galenson from 2006 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html The book sounds interesting.

13ren 18y ago

I think the "young genius" is a function of their times: the area was ripe for a revolution, and it just needed someone to say it. Like some discoveries. It's easier to see it (and go with it) for a less experienced person, who is less invested in the status quo and less risk averse. At other times, the same young person's risks would achieve little. OTOH, anyone who is actually there, who actually does it, who is an instrument of a revolution, should be celebrated as if they created it from nothing. Because if we don't encourage it, we'll have less of it. And any person, no matter what their achievement, can be dismissed as a mere agent of the environment - an inhuman and nihilistic view.

lliiffee 18y ago
I think you are on to something. For example, many people see research in the sciences as the progress of a few unbelievable geniuses, with 99% of people contributing nothing and wasting their time. So, for example, progress in Physics is just waiting for the next Einstein to show up to make the next insanely brilliant advance. However, I think that is wrong. Einstein was obviously a huge genius, but with an IQ of 160, I calculate there are currently about 9 million (=3 billion * .003) people walking the earth with higher ones. The stars have to be properly aligned so that it is possible to make such an advance. It is no coincidence that Einstein's discoveries were made so soon after other physicists make the contributions necessary for them. If he hadn't done it, it would have been somebody else.
wazkomoney 18y ago
i am the young genius hacker !

Prrometheus 18y ago

>The book was recommended to me by Malcolm Gladwell -- which means that many of you can now form your opinion of it without even reading it I'm going to guess it's a book with interesting ideas that is driven primarily by theory and anecdote.

aantix 18y ago

You can listen to this same presentation here : http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306onco_covers_gallery http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306onco_cover... If I recall correctly, Gladwell starts off the night by telling the stories of Fleetwood Mac vs The Eagles. Fleetwood Mac created 13 (?) albums before they got a hit. The Eagles first album was a smash.

aaronsw 18y ago

Tufte debunked this book in Beautiful Evidence. It even led him to coin the term economisting (emphasis on con and mist). Draft: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001Zl http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0... When I first read it I remarked that he was going after too easy a target -- surely nobody would take this stuff seriously. And yet, since then, all sorts of people have.

antiismist 18y ago
That link had the best thing I read all week in it. Thanks for sharing.
zasz 18y ago
Thanks for the link. Reading it, I couldn't believe that I and the others commenting here swallowed this book's thesis so easily and uncritically.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  I suspect the absence of quantities in the book is more a product of the book publishing process than of any intent to deceive. Recall that Stephen Hawking was told that 'every equation will drop sales by half.' But a lack of presented evidence doesn't imply that the thesis is wrong. Once you look, you find that the theory corresponds much more nicely to reality than the theory of genius commonly held: namely, that early success is a good predictor of later, great works. From what I know of history, in mathematics, art, architecture, music, physics, leadership, hacking, dance, there truly are distinct examples of prodigies and late bloomers. And it's enlightening to hear how he describes the difference in creative approach. For example, when I was a kid, the production of my work was only a hindrance. I had a concept or idea or visualization that I wanted to communicate, and I would tell people, literally, that I wish only that I had 'a projector in my head'. But many people, who's work I've come to respect deeply, rely instead on the resistance of their medium, the feedback of an audience, the taste of what they create, rely upon pursuing little accidents they stumble upon along the way as clues to help them find the form they seek. And I can tell just how different it is from a conceptual approach, and how patient and observant and diligent one must be to achieve its mastery.