3 ms·

couldn't the difference be more to do with the documented 10 years of practice needed before truly mastering something? the early bloomers could simply be the

couldn't the difference be more to do with the documented 10 years of practice needed before truly mastering something? the early bloomers could simply be the ones who started when they were 10, while the late bloomers simply the ones who switched careers.

jcl 18y ago
I'd guess Gladwell would disagree. In his example, Cezanne and Picasso were both painting in earnest by age 20. If it only took 10 years of practice, Cezanne would have been at his peak by 30, not 60. Likewise, Fountain was writing for at least 20 years before he had his breakthrough. It also doesn't explain why (in the anecdotal evidence in the article) late bloomers start weak and improve over a long time, while early bloomers peak early and decline.
- zach 18y ago
  To avoid seeming to beg the question, I'll call late bloomers experimentalists and the early bloomers (pure) conceptualists. Okay. It may be that conceptualists have a very natural peak in their early years because of two factors: a learning peak and a neural peak. For conceptualists, concepts are grasped, mastered and built on quickly, but are explored in their learning. Once they absorb a subject, they get tenaciously attached to worthless novelty, they find new things, or they're just not able to think about things in the same creative way. That's what I mean by a learning peak. Second, to go further out on a limb, could there be a neural peak? There are many late-blooming artists, but how many late-blooming mathematicians? Not many. Since theirs is the epitome of conceptual work, there might be something natural to it. One suspects that the, let's say, spark of creativity in conceptualists may actually consume neural connections which cannot be regained. It's interesting to think of and compare some notables in these terms. Edison, Fuller, Kubrick, Lucas, etc. It would be instructive to see examples of late-blooming non-experimentalists, for example. I also think that there are many fields where artists are encouraged make the transition from one approach to another, such as the actor that becomes a director. Perhaps this subject encompasses much of the difficulty of the artist at mid-life, maybe even that of Malcolm Gladwell.
  - eru 18y ago
    Or the mathematician that becomes a teaching Professor and textbook author.
  - drawkbox 18y ago
    I agree that this could be the case, but I don't think it is limited to the two factors that the author states. Timing is missing. If the same genius were born today would they perform and excel the same? Timing in business and being a staple of time is one in the same. Maybe genius knows what to be at the right time.
arebop 18y ago
"Galenson’s idea that creativity can be divided into these types --- conceptual and experimental --- has a number of important implications. For example, we sometimes think of late bloomers as late starters. They don’t realize they’re good at something until they’re fifty, so of course they achieve late in life. But that’s not quite right. Cézanne was painting almost as early as Picasso was. We also sometimes think of them as artists who are discovered late; the world is just slow to appreciate their gifts. In both cases, the assumption is that the prodigy and the late bloomer are fundamentally the same, and that late blooming is simply genius under conditions of market failure. What Galenson’s argument suggests is something else --- that late bloomers bloom late because they simply aren’t much good until late in their careers."
many 18y ago
Hesse wrote, semi-autobiographically, in Steppenwolf, that "the person with ordinary gifts will indeed achieve greatness, given two lifetimes." My opinion is that socio-economic environmental factors weigh terribly hard in the favor of the young "geniuses" who are just doing what sparks their interest. After their works are appraised ten years later, most of it will be forgotten or worse -- rubbed down. Once the youngsters are 'on their own', in the socio-economic element of their own making, comes the true test of time. The present is always too sexy for its own good, though I do sympathize w/ the 24-year-old who sees 31 as aged over the hill, knowing that she will be 31 and see 24 as happening just a moment ago. I'm 31, the present is still a bitch, and I'm 32 in March. Also, I wrote a poem that's as good as "The Snow Man" easily, probably on par with "The Fish". Don't take any wooden nickels, as the oldsters say ;-)

jcl 18y ago

I'd guess Gladwell would disagree. In his example, Cezanne and Picasso were both painting in earnest by age 20. If it only took 10 years of practice, Cezanne would have been at his peak by 30, not 60. Likewise, Fountain was writing for at least 20 years before he had his breakthrough. It also doesn't explain why (in the anecdotal evidence in the article) late bloomers start weak and improve over a long time, while early bloomers peak early and decline.

zach 18y ago
To avoid seeming to beg the question, I'll call late bloomers experimentalists and the early bloomers (pure) conceptualists. Okay. It may be that conceptualists have a very natural peak in their early years because of two factors: a learning peak and a neural peak. For conceptualists, concepts are grasped, mastered and built on quickly, but are explored in their learning. Once they absorb a subject, they get tenaciously attached to worthless novelty, they find new things, or they're just not able to think about things in the same creative way. That's what I mean by a learning peak. Second, to go further out on a limb, could there be a neural peak? There are many late-blooming artists, but how many late-blooming mathematicians? Not many. Since theirs is the epitome of conceptual work, there might be something natural to it. One suspects that the, let's say, spark of creativity in conceptualists may actually consume neural connections which cannot be regained. It's interesting to think of and compare some notables in these terms. Edison, Fuller, Kubrick, Lucas, etc. It would be instructive to see examples of late-blooming non-experimentalists, for example. I also think that there are many fields where artists are encouraged make the transition from one approach to another, such as the actor that becomes a director. Perhaps this subject encompasses much of the difficulty of the artist at mid-life, maybe even that of Malcolm Gladwell.
- eru 18y ago
  Or the mathematician that becomes a teaching Professor and textbook author.
- drawkbox 18y ago
  I agree that this could be the case, but I don't think it is limited to the two factors that the author states. Timing is missing. If the same genius were born today would they perform and excel the same? Timing in business and being a staple of time is one in the same. Maybe genius knows what to be at the right time.

arebop 18y ago

"Galenson’s idea that creativity can be divided into these types --- conceptual and experimental --- has a number of important implications. For example, we sometimes think of late bloomers as late starters. They don’t realize they’re good at something until they’re fifty, so of course they achieve late in life. But that’s not quite right. Cézanne was painting almost as early as Picasso was. We also sometimes think of them as artists who are discovered late; the world is just slow to appreciate their gifts. In both cases, the assumption is that the prodigy and the late bloomer are fundamentally the same, and that late blooming is simply genius under conditions of market failure. What Galenson’s argument suggests is something else --- that late bloomers bloom late because they simply aren’t much good until late in their careers."

many 18y ago

Hesse wrote, semi-autobiographically, in Steppenwolf, that "the person with ordinary gifts will indeed achieve greatness, given two lifetimes." My opinion is that socio-economic environmental factors weigh terribly hard in the favor of the young "geniuses" who are just doing what sparks their interest. After their works are appraised ten years later, most of it will be forgotten or worse -- rubbed down. Once the youngsters are 'on their own', in the socio-economic element of their own making, comes the true test of time. The present is always too sexy for its own good, though I do sympathize w/ the 24-year-old who sees 31 as aged over the hill, knowing that she will be 31 and see 24 as happening just a moment ago. I'm 31, the present is still a bitch, and I'm 32 in March. Also, I wrote a poem that's as good as "The Snow Man" easily, probably on par with "The Fish". Don't take any wooden nickels, as the oldsters say ;-)