4 ms·

>> Brunel subsequently studied under the prominent master clockmaker and horologist Abraham-Louis Breguet, who praised Brunel's potential in letters to his fath

by softg 3y ago

>> Brunel subsequently studied under the prominent master clockmaker and horologist Abraham-Louis Breguet, who praised Brunel's potential in letters to his father >This doesn't sound like something that would commonly happen today, alas. Seems like in the past, it was accepted that talent and potential was not uniformly distributed and that it was in everyone's interest to seek out and support those who have it, so that they can do great work for society. >Today you'd probably consider that kind of kid "privilege" and seek to divert investment from him to someone w/o his gifts, to seek a more equal but overall lesser, outcome. I'm sorry but this is nonsense. There are still elite schools around the world and difficult programs to get into. Some people study with prominent researchers and others don't. How's this any different? Today we have more schools and more people can get higher education. If anything, many other people who had similar talents back then would be unable to pursue a career in those days because their options would be limited. We're much better off today.

b800h 3y ago
There are more people in schools, but they have to lower standards as a result. We have CS graduates who can't write fizzbuzz. Unrestrained nepotism is stupid, but its opposite is equally absurd.
- asgerhb 3y ago
  I know sarcasm is frowned upon on HN but I am compelled to point out that in the 1830s there were also a lot of people who couldn't write fizzbuzz. If you cherry-pick random people today and compare them to historical figures, of course it will seem like things were better in the old days.
  - tragomaskhalos 3y ago
    OK I'm now imagining a 19th century job interview when the candidate is given three weeks to 'devise and construct a steam-powered apparatus capable of emulating the popular parlour game based on multiples of 3 and 5'. I'm sure modern steampunk enthusiasts can be nerd-sniped into having a go !
    - seabass-labrax 3y ago
      Connect to the main shaft a basic steam engine and two independent cogs of ratios of three and five. Then attach a cam to the side of each cog and have it press down on a stamper for output. Sounds easier than JavaScript!
- softg 3y ago
  >There are more people in schools, but they have to lower standards as a result. We have CS graduates who can't write fizzbuzz. >Unrestrained nepotism is stupid, but its opposite is equally absurd I think the opposite of unrestrained nepotism is meritocracy, which is surely a good thing. In the olden days we had few schools that made sure every CS graduate were fizzbuzz experts but back then computers were an expensive rarity that could only be touched by a fizzbuzz expert. Now that everyone and their grandma have a pocket computer that's more powerful than an IBM mainframe, of course the requirements will be different. Not every piece of software is mission critical, not everything has to be perfect. Crappy software is better than no software.
  - b800h 3y ago
    The opposite of nepotism isn't meritocracy, it's equality of outcomes.
    - softg 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you think nepotism is. Per wikipedia, "Nepotism is the act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or close friends in an occupation or field". The opposite of nepotism is where no one grants an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or close friends in an occupation or field. That's not "equality of outcomes" by any stretch. A hypothetical system that grants privileges purely on merit would be its true opposite.
      - b800h 3y ago
        These are almost orthogonal concerns. I may use nepotism to choose people I know who are talented. I may use other systems which attempt to completely level the playing field to do so. This may result in worse outcomes.
hilbert42 3y ago
">This doesn't sound like something that would commonly happen today, alas." When one studies the biographies of great people one often comes across a noticeable characteristic which is that they often have interests and or experiences in other areas or professions quite different to their chosen field. No doubt good schooling and training helps but what they also have in common is an uncanny ability to make relevant connections between seemingly very tenuous concepts/ideas between these interests—connections not noticeable to most of us but which end up being important. For instance, early on mathematician and all-round polymath John von Neumann studied chemistry and physicist Richard Feynman came to the attention of security personnel at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project for his expertise in picking locks—a trite example perhaps but it's an indicator of his all-round ability. Whilst most of us don't possess such genius it's nevertheless very noticeable that those who've diverse interests and experiences are often much better at solving unexpected 'left-field' type problems than those who don't. (In a similar vein, I recall a once boss of mine saying that, in general, he'd much prefer to employ a graduate with a MSc over one with a PhD as the latter's training was too narrow to be really useful.)
- softg 3y ago
  I think the problem is it's really difficult to be a polymath these days. We've advanced way too much for that to be viable. We've already discovered what can be discovered with simple observation and common sense. Every high schooler has entry level knowledge in multiple fields that can rival an ancient polymath. Only specialized knowledge is useful and everyone is specialized in some narrow field as a result. Even using multiple javascript frameworks is pain now.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    Of course it isn't more difficult to become a polymath these days. It's arguably easier than ever as information is so widespread and available. However, the way that society works today tends to discourage it. The polymaths from before times were almost always tutored extensively. Going through modern education systems with the rigmarole, standardized testing and the frankly, delayed, development for bright students is just completely different than the kind of education that most of these bright minds had. It's not that specialized knowledge is the only thing useful. The system simply rewards and produces specialized graduates as a result of modern education and employment practices, so that's what we get.

by softg 3y ago

b800h 3y ago

There are more people in schools, but they have to lower standards as a result. We have CS graduates who can't write fizzbuzz. Unrestrained nepotism is stupid, but its opposite is equally absurd.

asgerhb 3y ago
I know sarcasm is frowned upon on HN but I am compelled to point out that in the 1830s there were also a lot of people who couldn't write fizzbuzz. If you cherry-pick random people today and compare them to historical figures, of course it will seem like things were better in the old days.
- tragomaskhalos 3y ago
  OK I'm now imagining a 19th century job interview when the candidate is given three weeks to 'devise and construct a steam-powered apparatus capable of emulating the popular parlour game based on multiples of 3 and 5'. I'm sure modern steampunk enthusiasts can be nerd-sniped into having a go !
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    Connect to the main shaft a basic steam engine and two independent cogs of ratios of three and five. Then attach a cam to the side of each cog and have it press down on a stamper for output. Sounds easier than JavaScript!
softg 3y ago
>There are more people in schools, but they have to lower standards as a result. We have CS graduates who can't write fizzbuzz. >Unrestrained nepotism is stupid, but its opposite is equally absurd I think the opposite of unrestrained nepotism is meritocracy, which is surely a good thing. In the olden days we had few schools that made sure every CS graduate were fizzbuzz experts but back then computers were an expensive rarity that could only be touched by a fizzbuzz expert. Now that everyone and their grandma have a pocket computer that's more powerful than an IBM mainframe, of course the requirements will be different. Not every piece of software is mission critical, not everything has to be perfect. Crappy software is better than no software.
- b800h 3y ago
  The opposite of nepotism isn't meritocracy, it's equality of outcomes.
  - softg 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you think nepotism is. Per wikipedia, "Nepotism is the act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or close friends in an occupation or field". The opposite of nepotism is where no one grants an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or close friends in an occupation or field. That's not "equality of outcomes" by any stretch. A hypothetical system that grants privileges purely on merit would be its true opposite.
    - b800h 3y ago
      These are almost orthogonal concerns. I may use nepotism to choose people I know who are talented. I may use other systems which attempt to completely level the playing field to do so. This may result in worse outcomes.

hilbert42 3y ago

">This doesn't sound like something that would commonly happen today, alas." When one studies the biographies of great people one often comes across a noticeable characteristic which is that they often have interests and or experiences in other areas or professions quite different to their chosen field. No doubt good schooling and training helps but what they also have in common is an uncanny ability to make relevant connections between seemingly very tenuous concepts/ideas between these interests—connections not noticeable to most of us but which end up being important. For instance, early on mathematician and all-round polymath John von Neumann studied chemistry and physicist Richard Feynman came to the attention of security personnel at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project for his expertise in picking locks—a trite example perhaps but it's an indicator of his all-round ability. Whilst most of us don't possess such genius it's nevertheless very noticeable that those who've diverse interests and experiences are often much better at solving unexpected 'left-field' type problems than those who don't. (In a similar vein, I recall a once boss of mine saying that, in general, he'd much prefer to employ a graduate with a MSc over one with a PhD as the latter's training was too narrow to be really useful.)

softg 3y ago
I think the problem is it's really difficult to be a polymath these days. We've advanced way too much for that to be viable. We've already discovered what can be discovered with simple observation and common sense. Every high schooler has entry level knowledge in multiple fields that can rival an ancient polymath. Only specialized knowledge is useful and everyone is specialized in some narrow field as a result. Even using multiple javascript frameworks is pain now.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Of course it isn't more difficult to become a polymath these days. It's arguably easier than ever as information is so widespread and available. However, the way that society works today tends to discourage it. The polymaths from before times were almost always tutored extensively. Going through modern education systems with the rigmarole, standardized testing and the frankly, delayed, development for bright students is just completely different than the kind of education that most of these bright minds had. It's not that specialized knowledge is the only thing useful. The system simply rewards and produces specialized graduates as a result of modern education and employment practices, so that's what we get.