4 ms·

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.

by zasz 18y ago

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.
- zasz 18y ago
  I do agree a lack of evidence does not make a thesis wrong. Everyone thought the discoverer of plate tectonics was wrong because he was unable to provide a precise mechanism for how the continents might move, despite an impressive array of fossil, biological, and other evidence. I don't think this theory of old masters and prodigies is completely debunked, but I thought Aaron's article brought up an excellent point about how the valuations were being made that I'd simply swallowed too easily. Aaron's submission was also the first thing I'd seen of anyone being critical at all, which was slightly startling in retrospect. I try to make a policy of not believing everything I hear and I failed this time. I suppose I was a little condescending though. I'm sorry.

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.

by 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.

zasz 18y ago
I do agree a lack of evidence does not make a thesis wrong. Everyone thought the discoverer of plate tectonics was wrong because he was unable to provide a precise mechanism for how the continents might move, despite an impressive array of fossil, biological, and other evidence. I don't think this theory of old masters and prodigies is completely debunked, but I thought Aaron's article brought up an excellent point about how the valuations were being made that I'd simply swallowed too easily. Aaron's submission was also the first thing I'd seen of anyone being critical at all, which was slightly startling in retrospect. I try to make a policy of not believing everything I hear and I failed this time. I suppose I was a little condescending though. I'm sorry.