7 ms·

An interesting observation from an inside perspective. I was aware of a few physicists who had "peaked" early in their careers, Einstein was a prominent example

An interesting observation from an inside perspective. I was aware of a few physicists who had "peaked" early in their careers, Einstein was a prominent example. That poets show the same pattern is something I just learned. About painters and other visual artists, it's true that many were still working and producing in their final years. OTOH it was often the case that in old age they worked in relative obscurity as younger artists with "modern" styles had become the ones sought after and celebrated. I've come to understand that the merit of most contemporary visual artwork won't be decided until 50 or 100 years down the road. In his time Rembrandt was known mainly for his magnificent etchings, printmaking was his main business. Now we celebrate his paintings as much or more, but we have the luxury of centuries to have honed our esthetic metrics. My hunch is that creativity among physicists is the product of a special kind of insight, a moment when a number of seemingly disparate (and possibly mundane) phenomena suddenly align within a brilliant mind. Maybe this is a pretty common experience, but in most instances the insight isn't about anything really important to the rest of the world. Mostly it's something that happens early in life, young adult years most likely. Careers are about working out the details and reducing it to words (and equations) others can understand, a very hard task to accomplish. While much has been written about creativity we really know very little about what magical things make it happen in those rare and enchanted brains.

bsenftner 5y ago
> we really know very little about what magical things make it happen in those rare and enchanted brains. This type of thinking does not help. There is no magic, there is no enchantment, there is only vision - the ability to see, to imagine, what others fail to imagine. Then it is an issue of communication, to tune others so they can imagine the new entity too. I believe this is a communications issue, and those individuals with intellectual gifts have an inner voice that communicates in non-complex basic ideas the gifted see transparently inside complexity. Case in point: when first learning about normalized numbers, a friend smarter than I in the same class remarked "Oh! they are talking about my 'minis'!" - my friend had figured out, realized the value of normalized numbers when learning basic multiplication in elementary, assumed the concept was obvious and incorporated it everywhere he used multiplication - to the ire of his elementary and high school math teachers. I lost track of him, but I last was aware of him being a cross disciplinary professor at Carnegie Mellon University.
Qem 5y ago
I think painting also benefited early technical advances. Glasses were invented quite early, so many artists that otherwise would lose performance to bad eyesight when older could keep going on. I wonder what other technical advances could help people in other activities to keep performing well despite getting older. Perhaps automated calculation tools will be the "glasses" to help the current generation of mathematicians keep their edge as they age, given the ability to do hard calculations is one aspect of work that appears to take a heavy hit in old age.
inter_netuser 5y ago
My personal theory on early peaking in physics and math is that the best proxy for intelligence, working memory, begins to measurably decline in your 40s. It likely begins to decline even prior to that, as our ability to measure it is very rough and imprecise, which seems to align well with ages when physics/math geniuses peak, ~30s.
- nosianu 5y ago
  Here's my contrarian perspective, I'm 49. I'm only going to give a small part of my thoughts, there's more, but let's keep a narrow focus for the forum format. I'm less and less willing to submerge myself deep into fields far removed from daily life. I can still do it, and actually easier than ever before. I just don't want to. I feel it's not because I'm dumber, quite he opposite. It's because I understand and see sooooo much more than twenty years ago. I just don't see the point as much. I had a much more narrow view in my youth, and that allowed me to concentrate on narrow and deep subjects for long periods of time. I don't want to go into the reasons because that would really explode the text volume and mix subjective and objective things that would in turn require quite some effort in untangling. I also care quite a bit less about "progress" because I lost a lot of idealism. In that sense, understanding more of the world might be counterproductive for productivity... I think I can claim I'm a lot more capable with my brain than two decades ago. I tested it by taking numerous edX and Coursera courses, quite a few of the very challenging, and I was invited to become a C[ommunity]TA several times in courses way outside my own field, including math stuff that I had difficulties with in the past. My job is not standard stuff either.
  - 21723 5y ago
    One thing I've noticed with age is the reduced interest in competing. When you're young, you want to know how you measure up to your peers, what your percentile ranking is, et cetera. When you're older, you realize that very few things actually worth doing fit into a competitive frame, because if something can be objectively evaluated, then it's probably already been done a million times. I don't think chess players peak at 35 because they're losing their touch. I think they develop other interests; the ones who aren't going to be professionals realize it and downshift, and the truly elite ones achieve what they set out to do and move on to things they see as more interesting. This is probably why the corporate thugs are so ageist. They know it's easy to pit people in their 20s against each other. Once people are older and have more perspective, it's hard to make them compete over scraps.
_zamorano_ 5y ago
To me, is a society and ego issue. When you're 20-30 something and a nobody in your field, but a privileged mind, you keep your eyes open to all posibilities. You are hardworking and then results come. Then you gain a name and have all eyes on you and your mental processes change. Suddenly with your opinions, you've got a reputation to defend. You're aware of those supporting you and those who are not. You're reasoning gets blurred by your ego and personality. Once you publicly speak an opinion on a topic for enough time, you cannot simply go back without looking like a moron. There are several instances of the most brilliant minds following this pattern. Geniuses giving their backs to the scientific method, to all evidence, and looking like amateurs. Comes to mind Einstein, spending his last years trying to debunk quantum physics against all evidence, Linus Pauling and his C-Vitamin craze or Nikola Tesla and his every time crazier projects with no practical viability. I guess there might be more.
- watwut 5y ago
  Your analysis ignores young brilliant people who chase crazy stuff and thus never become known in the first place. Or become known for crazy stuff and nothing more.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > Nikola Tesla and his every time crazier projects with no practical viability I’m not sure this had to do with ego. He just seems to have enjoyed building crazy stuff.
- hippie_queen 5y ago
  Your theory is reasonable and probably partially correct, but the Einstein example is quite a simplification. I suspect the ego/arrogance thing works both ways. When you're younger you're often more willing to show the finger to existing paradigms and are perhaps arrogant enough to think you can "revolutionize physics." Naturally, most people can't do that but some make history. (Also, I'm talking out of my ass and should probably add some history of science to my reading stack).

bsenftner 5y ago

> we really know very little about what magical things make it happen in those rare and enchanted brains. This type of thinking does not help. There is no magic, there is no enchantment, there is only vision - the ability to see, to imagine, what others fail to imagine. Then it is an issue of communication, to tune others so they can imagine the new entity too. I believe this is a communications issue, and those individuals with intellectual gifts have an inner voice that communicates in non-complex basic ideas the gifted see transparently inside complexity. Case in point: when first learning about normalized numbers, a friend smarter than I in the same class remarked "Oh! they are talking about my 'minis'!" - my friend had figured out, realized the value of normalized numbers when learning basic multiplication in elementary, assumed the concept was obvious and incorporated it everywhere he used multiplication - to the ire of his elementary and high school math teachers. I lost track of him, but I last was aware of him being a cross disciplinary professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

Qem 5y ago

I think painting also benefited early technical advances. Glasses were invented quite early, so many artists that otherwise would lose performance to bad eyesight when older could keep going on. I wonder what other technical advances could help people in other activities to keep performing well despite getting older. Perhaps automated calculation tools will be the "glasses" to help the current generation of mathematicians keep their edge as they age, given the ability to do hard calculations is one aspect of work that appears to take a heavy hit in old age.

inter_netuser 5y ago

My personal theory on early peaking in physics and math is that the best proxy for intelligence, working memory, begins to measurably decline in your 40s. It likely begins to decline even prior to that, as our ability to measure it is very rough and imprecise, which seems to align well with ages when physics/math geniuses peak, ~30s.

nosianu 5y ago
Here's my contrarian perspective, I'm 49. I'm only going to give a small part of my thoughts, there's more, but let's keep a narrow focus for the forum format. I'm less and less willing to submerge myself deep into fields far removed from daily life. I can still do it, and actually easier than ever before. I just don't want to. I feel it's not because I'm dumber, quite he opposite. It's because I understand and see sooooo much more than twenty years ago. I just don't see the point as much. I had a much more narrow view in my youth, and that allowed me to concentrate on narrow and deep subjects for long periods of time. I don't want to go into the reasons because that would really explode the text volume and mix subjective and objective things that would in turn require quite some effort in untangling. I also care quite a bit less about "progress" because I lost a lot of idealism. In that sense, understanding more of the world might be counterproductive for productivity... I think I can claim I'm a lot more capable with my brain than two decades ago. I tested it by taking numerous edX and Coursera courses, quite a few of the very challenging, and I was invited to become a C[ommunity]TA several times in courses way outside my own field, including math stuff that I had difficulties with in the past. My job is not standard stuff either.
- 21723 5y ago
  One thing I've noticed with age is the reduced interest in competing. When you're young, you want to know how you measure up to your peers, what your percentile ranking is, et cetera. When you're older, you realize that very few things actually worth doing fit into a competitive frame, because if something can be objectively evaluated, then it's probably already been done a million times. I don't think chess players peak at 35 because they're losing their touch. I think they develop other interests; the ones who aren't going to be professionals realize it and downshift, and the truly elite ones achieve what they set out to do and move on to things they see as more interesting. This is probably why the corporate thugs are so ageist. They know it's easy to pit people in their 20s against each other. Once people are older and have more perspective, it's hard to make them compete over scraps.

_zamorano_ 5y ago

To me, is a society and ego issue. When you're 20-30 something and a nobody in your field, but a privileged mind, you keep your eyes open to all posibilities. You are hardworking and then results come. Then you gain a name and have all eyes on you and your mental processes change. Suddenly with your opinions, you've got a reputation to defend. You're aware of those supporting you and those who are not. You're reasoning gets blurred by your ego and personality. Once you publicly speak an opinion on a topic for enough time, you cannot simply go back without looking like a moron. There are several instances of the most brilliant minds following this pattern. Geniuses giving their backs to the scientific method, to all evidence, and looking like amateurs. Comes to mind Einstein, spending his last years trying to debunk quantum physics against all evidence, Linus Pauling and his C-Vitamin craze or Nikola Tesla and his every time crazier projects with no practical viability. I guess there might be more.

watwut 5y ago
Your analysis ignores young brilliant people who chase crazy stuff and thus never become known in the first place. Or become known for crazy stuff and nothing more.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Aeolun 5y ago
> Nikola Tesla and his every time crazier projects with no practical viability I’m not sure this had to do with ego. He just seems to have enjoyed building crazy stuff.
hippie_queen 5y ago
Your theory is reasonable and probably partially correct, but the Einstein example is quite a simplification. I suspect the ego/arrogance thing works both ways. When you're younger you're often more willing to show the finger to existing paradigms and are perhaps arrogant enough to think you can "revolutionize physics." Naturally, most people can't do that but some make history. (Also, I'm talking out of my ass and should probably add some history of science to my reading stack).