There's a reason the phrase "beginner's luck" exists. I'm not sure the naïveté and success are causally related so much as they might be coincident. Could know

There's a reason the phrase "beginner's luck" exists. I'm not sure the naïveté and success are causally related so much as they might be coincident. Could knowing about prior research skew one's perspective and tarnish novel thought? Sure. But we don't know. Maybe we'd have an even better Balatro if the creator knew about some other deck builders. Maybe we wouldn't, we don't know. We cannot prove the counterfactual. On the opposite extreme, there are examples of thinkers whose success stemmed from knowing much about one domain or much about many domains and integrating (Luhmann, Goethe, Feynman, Von Neumann etc.). In the general case, I think we are probably much better off promoting knowledge and study, and not ignorance and chance. That said, I do think we should retain our willingness to play and to try things that are "out of bounds" with respect to the existing accumulated knowledge. We should live informed lives, but play and explore like unschooled children.