2 ms·

Sure, we shouldn’t have this naive view that these so-called solitary geniuses work 1000% on their own without any input whatsoever from other people, but that

Sure, we shouldn’t have this naive view that these so-called solitary geniuses work 1000% on their own without any input whatsoever from other people, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t do most of the heavy lifting. Seems like a reasonable middle ground, and therefore more or less destined to be lost in a sea of extremes.

stickfigure 5y ago
Or rephrasing it: The 10X scientist exists.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > The 10X scientist exists. ...because they had 10X more patience and love. Likely also better pedagogical materials and better teachers.
  - Buttons840 5y ago
    The environment makes the 10Xer as much as they make themself.
    - beckman466 5y ago
      Did you know it's impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps? https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/pull_yourself_up_by_your_bootstraps/ https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/pul...
  - somethingAlex 5y ago
    I suppose comments like this are what got the author to write the blog post. Genetics also matter and we as a society should make sure we foster the potential of people like the 10X scientist. I have a great memory - my brother however, has an encyclopedic memory. He doesn't forget things that he reads. I will never be like, regardless of my environment. But most people aren't in the 99th percentile of genetics so emphasizing the fact that most innovations do come from collaboration is helpful for society. However, we should still emphasis that there truly are some "rockstars" out there and make sure their environment matches up to their genetics.
    - ryder9 5y ago
      another day on hackernews and someone unironically arguing for eugenics
    - bcrosby95 5y ago
      I'm not sure we have the ability to identify the rockstars except in hindsight.
      - tux3 5y ago
        Do we have any reason to believe that, much to my distaste, IQ is not the metric you want, being correlated with all the outcomes you'd expect in future 'rockstars'? I think it takes more than IQ to make a profound discovery (c.f. the remark about talent lost to sweatshops), but that doesn't make the unlucky person not a genius. Just an unrealized one.
        username90 5y ago
        IQ is one thing, but I've found that IQ doesn't seem to correlate with creativity at all. Creativity as in "the ability to come up with novel useful ideas", not the bad definition psychology uses "the ability to come up with lots of crap ideas". Not sure if we actually have a test for creativity, but it seems like some people have a very good ability to see what is useful and where to put their effort. And some people with very good IQ scores are really bad at it. They can solve math equations really well, but when it comes to discovering new useful math they are completely lost since they don't have the creativity to understand what new things are actually interesting.
        Ankintol 5y ago
        I'd encourage you to look into Cognitive Load Theory[0]. A key finding is that people are not creative generally but are instead creative relative to their skills. e.g. if you are not a skilled programmer your programming is very unlikely to be creative except insofar as it relates to a non-programming skill that you have acquired. This suggests that most creative solutions will come from people who learn many things. You'd expect people with high IQ and conscientiousness (implies being organized and driven) to be the most creative group. This lines up with the best evidence I've found, and anecdotally matched my experiences as an educator and continues to as a software developer. I think this may also explain your own experiences. The model predicts that a smart person who learns a lot less about a topic than their less smart peer would be less creative thinking the topic. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-Performance-Technologies/dp/144198125X https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-...
  - ryan93 5y ago
    Teachers don’t matter. Students with the same teacher have absurdly different outcomes. And countless people have access to the same textbooks. Quantum mechanics isn’t locked away in some secret monastery
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  I would say more like the zero to one scientist exists.
dfxm12 5y ago
Seems like a reasonable middle ground that doesn't support the author's premise, either.
- hprotagonist 5y ago
  And yet, it's a direct quote from the article.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
There's also a difference between collaboration and being on a team or group that directs the goal. It's arguable that lone genius collaborates but are the sole director of their idea and goal.

stickfigure 5y ago

Or rephrasing it: The 10X scientist exists.

beckman466 5y ago
> The 10X scientist exists. ...because they had 10X more patience and love. Likely also better pedagogical materials and better teachers.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  The environment makes the 10Xer as much as they make themself.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    Did you know it's impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps? https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/pull_yourself_up_by_your_bootstraps/ https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/pul...
- somethingAlex 5y ago
  I suppose comments like this are what got the author to write the blog post. Genetics also matter and we as a society should make sure we foster the potential of people like the 10X scientist. I have a great memory - my brother however, has an encyclopedic memory. He doesn't forget things that he reads. I will never be like, regardless of my environment. But most people aren't in the 99th percentile of genetics so emphasizing the fact that most innovations do come from collaboration is helpful for society. However, we should still emphasis that there truly are some "rockstars" out there and make sure their environment matches up to their genetics.
  - ryder9 5y ago
    another day on hackernews and someone unironically arguing for eugenics
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    I'm not sure we have the ability to identify the rockstars except in hindsight.
    - tux3 5y ago
      Do we have any reason to believe that, much to my distaste, IQ is not the metric you want, being correlated with all the outcomes you'd expect in future 'rockstars'? I think it takes more than IQ to make a profound discovery (c.f. the remark about talent lost to sweatshops), but that doesn't make the unlucky person not a genius. Just an unrealized one.
      - username90 5y ago
        IQ is one thing, but I've found that IQ doesn't seem to correlate with creativity at all. Creativity as in "the ability to come up with novel useful ideas", not the bad definition psychology uses "the ability to come up with lots of crap ideas". Not sure if we actually have a test for creativity, but it seems like some people have a very good ability to see what is useful and where to put their effort. And some people with very good IQ scores are really bad at it. They can solve math equations really well, but when it comes to discovering new useful math they are completely lost since they don't have the creativity to understand what new things are actually interesting.
        Ankintol 5y ago
        I'd encourage you to look into Cognitive Load Theory[0]. A key finding is that people are not creative generally but are instead creative relative to their skills. e.g. if you are not a skilled programmer your programming is very unlikely to be creative except insofar as it relates to a non-programming skill that you have acquired. This suggests that most creative solutions will come from people who learn many things. You'd expect people with high IQ and conscientiousness (implies being organized and driven) to be the most creative group. This lines up with the best evidence I've found, and anecdotally matched my experiences as an educator and continues to as a software developer. I think this may also explain your own experiences. The model predicts that a smart person who learns a lot less about a topic than their less smart peer would be less creative thinking the topic. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-Performance-Technologies/dp/144198125X https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-...
- ryan93 5y ago
  Teachers don’t matter. Students with the same teacher have absurdly different outcomes. And countless people have access to the same textbooks. Quantum mechanics isn’t locked away in some secret monastery
rufus_foreman 5y ago
I would say more like the zero to one scientist exists.

dfxm12 5y ago

Seems like a reasonable middle ground that doesn't support the author's premise, either.

hprotagonist 5y ago
And yet, it's a direct quote from the article.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

There's also a difference between collaboration and being on a team or group that directs the goal. It's arguable that lone genius collaborates but are the sole director of their idea and goal.