Yeah I think the whole argument rests on the meaning of words: what does "lone" mean? And the article didn't really get into that, or it was fairly sloppy abou

Yeah I think the whole argument rests on the meaning of words: what does "lone" mean? And the article didn't really get into that, or it was fairly sloppy about it. Also, I don't think there is that meaningful a distinction between a lone genius and a very small group. Is what Crick, Watson, and Franklin did any less useful or interesting than what Einstein did, simply because there were multiple people working on it? I'm sure they had to "go it alone" for quite awhile (and there were probably a few more people helping them). To me it sounds like Katalin Kariko (mRNA vaccine inventor) was something of a lone genius early in her career. Certainly her colleagues didn't believe in her work. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125003 But apparently the more senior faculty Drew Weissman did and they made progress together. I'm not sure but it sounds like she is the main driver of the work. My point is that it doesn't seem to matter? Either way, they had to do long term work that wasn't accepted by their peers, and turned out to be extremely valuable. Though I guess you can say it matters because it's "easier" for 1 person to work in isolation, but it's not easy for 2 or 3 people. For example, they need lab equipment, physical space, etc. Einstein and Ramanujan didn't need that. Anyway, there is probably useful stuff to explore there, but the article seemed to be grinding an axe and wasn't that clear about what it was saying. Obviously the truth is somewhere in between the extremes, and depends on what "lone" means.