The myth of the myth of the lone genius(rogersbacon.substack.com)
rogersbacon.substack.com
The myth of the myth of the lone genius
https://rogersbacon.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-the-lone
130 comments
As individualistic social creatures, the brains of human beings have evolved to understand characters. That's why we anthropomorphisize everything. Technological progress is no exception: Every revolution as well as incremental step must have a person assigned to it. If none exists, we create the idea of one (e.g. God).
I think it's useful to decompose this dialectical into "material" and a "social" dimensions. The material dimension is about change in the world[1]: places are conquered, techniques are developed. We can acknowledge and think about these changes without assigning them a cause. The social dimension is all about assigning causes to those changes. The idea that one person invents something or that it is "in the air" is ultimately a social judgement[2]. People can believe whichever narrative they want and will frequently fight about which narrative is correct.
So, to me, it is 100% true that there is no final word on the social question. We both have highly ambiguous historical examples and every reason to question if the historical examples that appear unambiguous are simply shaped by the social consensus of their time.
I do not think we need to accept that there is no final world on the material question. It seems very possible for us to improve our techniques for fostering discoveries. That's not to say it's easy to see clearly (obviously our social ties mess with us here), but I don't think they are the same.
> At this point I think it's best to simply acknowledge that there's truth to both sides, and that therefore the debate is ultimately artificial
By this standard, isn't nearly all debate "artificial"? Two opposite sides can both have points, but how we weigh them can have enormous real world consequences.
[1] Of course, social changes are also changes in the world but let's not tie ourselves in knots too much.
[2] There is also obviously a material element here - someone does something, but I think that material action is irretrievably obscured by the social consensus layer.
So, to me, it is 100% true that there is no final word on the social question. We both have highly ambiguous historical examples and every reason to question if the historical examples that appear unambiguous are simply shaped by the social consensus of their time.
I do not think we need to accept that there is no final world on the material question. It seems very possible for us to improve our techniques for fostering discoveries. That's not to say it's easy to see clearly (obviously our social ties mess with us here), but I don't think they are the same.
> At this point I think it's best to simply acknowledge that there's truth to both sides, and that therefore the debate is ultimately artificial
By this standard, isn't nearly all debate "artificial"? Two opposite sides can both have points, but how we weigh them can have enormous real world consequences.
[1] Of course, social changes are also changes in the world but let's not tie ourselves in knots too much.
[2] There is also obviously a material element here - someone does something, but I think that material action is irretrievably obscured by the social consensus layer.
> By this standard, isn't nearly all debate "artificial"?
No. Most of scientific debate eventually gets settled on one side or another, and plenty of history can be settled similarly too, even when there are multiple causes/influences behind an event. You just do the research, and if the facts are available the answer ultimately will be too.
But it's important to separate out the "big philosophical unanswerable" questions like this one, because they are different. They're really about exposing and teaching paradigms rather than having a single answer.
No. Most of scientific debate eventually gets settled on one side or another, and plenty of history can be settled similarly too, even when there are multiple causes/influences behind an event. You just do the research, and if the facts are available the answer ultimately will be too.
But it's important to separate out the "big philosophical unanswerable" questions like this one, because they are different. They're really about exposing and teaching paradigms rather than having a single answer.
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
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.
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
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.
It’s not a matter of perspective; It’s a matter of definitions.
> History [..] is full of geniuses who came up with a revolutionary idea largely on their own [...] (Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein to name the most obvious examples).
This line has almost the opposite effect than intended in me. Yes, Newton and Darwin were geniuses that came with revolutionary ideas, but on the other hand, for calculus and evolution it seems to have been their time. Leibniz and Alfred Russel Wallace came to the same ideas around the same time.
This line has almost the opposite effect than intended in me. Yes, Newton and Darwin were geniuses that came with revolutionary ideas, but on the other hand, for calculus and evolution it seems to have been their time. Leibniz and Alfred Russel Wallace came to the same ideas around the same time.
Came here to call out the same selection of examples as really weird for the purpose of making that point.
Newton and Darwin for the reasons you cite—and if two arrived at the same breakthrough at almost the same time, does one dare imagine that a dozen or more others weren't damn close, despite the fraction of a percent of the global population had, or has, the upbringing, inclination, and freedom to even approach the problem in the first place? Hell, does one even dare imagine that a thousand nobodies hadn't had the insight that would have led them straight to that breakthrough much sooner if only they'd had the background and environment to recognize it as significant, follow through to prove it, and gain publicity for their discovery? Surely not.
Aristotle, well, shit, everyone whose independent work survives from antiquity looks like a lone genius, but that's obviously, in part, because so little survives and because attribution is so sketchy. With Aristotle in particular it's not even clear how much was his work is his, directly, and how much was the work of his "school", developed over years or decades by many people, if we're talking about particular insights or inventions, and not sheer overall-importance of a person.
I know less about the environment around Einstein's breakthroughs but given the rest I'd be surprised if the author actually managed to pick a good example, for his purposes.
Newton and Darwin for the reasons you cite—and if two arrived at the same breakthrough at almost the same time, does one dare imagine that a dozen or more others weren't damn close, despite the fraction of a percent of the global population had, or has, the upbringing, inclination, and freedom to even approach the problem in the first place? Hell, does one even dare imagine that a thousand nobodies hadn't had the insight that would have led them straight to that breakthrough much sooner if only they'd had the background and environment to recognize it as significant, follow through to prove it, and gain publicity for their discovery? Surely not.
Aristotle, well, shit, everyone whose independent work survives from antiquity looks like a lone genius, but that's obviously, in part, because so little survives and because attribution is so sketchy. With Aristotle in particular it's not even clear how much was his work is his, directly, and how much was the work of his "school", developed over years or decades by many people, if we're talking about particular insights or inventions, and not sheer overall-importance of a person.
I know less about the environment around Einstein's breakthroughs but given the rest I'd be surprised if the author actually managed to pick a good example, for his purposes.
>does one dare imagine that a dozen or more others weren't damn close
I think about this in the computer security industry, and my conclusion is that no, they were not. You do this in depth research on a niche topic. You submit it to an industry conference with 1000 attendees, 100 people attend your talk, 10 have the background understanding for it, and it is relevant to 1 other person's work.
There is a surprisingly finite number of people working on certain problems. I am working on a hypervisor for binary instrumentation right now. It is because a single person streamed themselves building one over the course of a week. [1] How many other people watched the hours of video and were inspired to undertake such a project? I know of 1 other. The community is small, but let's extrapolate that to 5 people.
I am not saying we are working on something so revolutionary, but on a rather niche problem, there are less than half a dozen people working on it. We also have other obligations in life like work, school, or personal relationships. So it is likely there will only be 1 or 2 applications fully realized.
Could someone else do it? Absolutely, but very few are motivated on such a specific problem. They may have an interest in some other topic instead.
1. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSkhUfcCXvqHsOy2VUxuo...
I think about this in the computer security industry, and my conclusion is that no, they were not. You do this in depth research on a niche topic. You submit it to an industry conference with 1000 attendees, 100 people attend your talk, 10 have the background understanding for it, and it is relevant to 1 other person's work.
There is a surprisingly finite number of people working on certain problems. I am working on a hypervisor for binary instrumentation right now. It is because a single person streamed themselves building one over the course of a week. [1] How many other people watched the hours of video and were inspired to undertake such a project? I know of 1 other. The community is small, but let's extrapolate that to 5 people.
I am not saying we are working on something so revolutionary, but on a rather niche problem, there are less than half a dozen people working on it. We also have other obligations in life like work, school, or personal relationships. So it is likely there will only be 1 or 2 applications fully realized.
Could someone else do it? Absolutely, but very few are motivated on such a specific problem. They may have an interest in some other topic instead.
1. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSkhUfcCXvqHsOy2VUxuo...
It's definitely true that as knowledge and research become deeper and more specialized that few people realistically can be sufficiently immersed in it to even have an idea of what the Hard Problems that are Nonetheless Regarded as Probably Tractable are, let alone the background and time to work on them.
And yet - meltdown and spectre were both independently discovered by multiple separate teams.
Einstein is also a really bad example; there is Hendrik Lorentz for special relativity and David Hilbert for general relativity wo would've probably produced the exact same results maybe some years later had Einstein never existed.
In fact, I can not think of a single (!!) scientist that progressed his field in a truly revolutionary manner; every great thinker that comes to mind had contemporaries that could have substituted for them with only minor delays in progress.
I fully agree with the author that geniuses exist, it's just that they all were/are replaceable.
In fact, I can not think of a single (!!) scientist that progressed his field in a truly revolutionary manner; every great thinker that comes to mind had contemporaries that could have substituted for them with only minor delays in progress.
I fully agree with the author that geniuses exist, it's just that they all were/are replaceable.
How much delay do you estimate on the discovery time of Newton's three laws of motion, if Newton was deleted from history?
Suppose I told you that you could delete five people born in the 1800s, of your choosing, from history. How much do you think you could delay the general understanding of special relativity?
Suppose I told you that you could delete five people born in the 1800s, of your choosing, from history. How much do you think you could delay the general understanding of special relativity?
Isn't Einstein the poster-boy for the theory that people we regard as a lone genius were actually in constant communication with sub-geniuses we've never heard of that helped him?
I thought he was more held up as an archetype of the "strange" ones who people misunderstand at first, but end up contributing in a large way. That's why he was plastered on classrooms and his image used in anti-bullying campaigns in the 90's.
Of course, in those he was always stood out alone but probably more for the convenience of a simple message for children/mass consumption.
Of course, in those he was always stood out alone but probably more for the convenience of a simple message for children/mass consumption.
Some of his appeal to pedagogy had to do with pure myth-making surrounding him, like the "Einstein failed math, so don't worry, lone kid in your class still struggling with long division, you may yet be a math genius, so don't give up!" stuff that was such a large part of how he was presented for a long time (may still be, as far as kids in school are concerned). There's a lot of "everyman who just tried hard and made it big" stuff about his biography that's, at best, disingenuously contextualized, yet is plausibly most of his presence in the popular imagination and in pop culture.
> aristotle
i wonder if that's perhaps the best example of how 'lone genius' works, and that our dismissal of his responsibility for work cited to him is misguided?
as in, the genius is in creating a framework, like that old meme about creating new boxes for other people to think inside
i wonder if that's perhaps the best example of how 'lone genius' works, and that our dismissal of his responsibility for work cited to him is misguided?
as in, the genius is in creating a framework, like that old meme about creating new boxes for other people to think inside
It can both be the case that some people did great things, and that better understanding the full context of how they did that, and what exactly they did personally do to achieve that end, is useful if we wish to imitate them or provide good policy, environments, teaching, and resources for others to do the same.
Excessively crediting the individual, or misunderstanding their work, may lead us to believe ourselves capable of less than we actually are—"Sure, I like painting and I'm good at it, but I could never make as many great paintings as so-and-so, that would be impossible!" weeeellllll so-and-so was a great artist, true, that's not wrong, but about 3/4 of the paint on your favorite work of his was applied by his assistants, so you might not be so far off as you imagine, and also you may need to redirect some of your efforts at skill-improvement if you want to match his output—say, to selecting, and managing, and not-feeling-guilty-about-not-crediting, assistants.
Which is to say, really, that I'm agreeing with you: the possibility that Aristotle may not have personally, solely, and remarkably capably, founded and written the inaugural texts for several major fields of study in Western science and academics, doesn't mean that he didn't do some great things, but it may change how one pursues imitating any part of his achievements, and the apparent attainability of doing great work of anything like the same order.
Excessively crediting the individual, or misunderstanding their work, may lead us to believe ourselves capable of less than we actually are—"Sure, I like painting and I'm good at it, but I could never make as many great paintings as so-and-so, that would be impossible!" weeeellllll so-and-so was a great artist, true, that's not wrong, but about 3/4 of the paint on your favorite work of his was applied by his assistants, so you might not be so far off as you imagine, and also you may need to redirect some of your efforts at skill-improvement if you want to match his output—say, to selecting, and managing, and not-feeling-guilty-about-not-crediting, assistants.
Which is to say, really, that I'm agreeing with you: the possibility that Aristotle may not have personally, solely, and remarkably capably, founded and written the inaugural texts for several major fields of study in Western science and academics, doesn't mean that he didn't do some great things, but it may change how one pursues imitating any part of his achievements, and the apparent attainability of doing great work of anything like the same order.
I've never understood the line of thinking in this sub-thread. What important point is being made by nitpicking and tearing down people who - for perhaps a complex set of reasons including luck - have managed to reach legendary hero status? Why not just let them have it, let people have their heroes?
The whole "well, he wasn't that great, he had help, and probably a lot of other people could have done what he did..." argument just reeks of bitterness, jealousy, and sour grapes.
Aristotle managed to go down as the genius of his day, his contemporaries didn't. Do we really gain anything by vaguely questioning that?
The whole "well, he wasn't that great, he had help, and probably a lot of other people could have done what he did..." argument just reeks of bitterness, jealousy, and sour grapes.
Aristotle managed to go down as the genius of his day, his contemporaries didn't. Do we really gain anything by vaguely questioning that?
Aristotle is pretty clearly not a lone genius -- his philosophy is a direct descendant of Plato's (who was his teacher). He even (reputedely) began by writing dialogues (like Plato. These are now lost). And though he has been the perhaps the most influential (entirely because of his adoption by Islamic and then Christian scholastics in the middle ages), he had numerous contemporaries (Diogenes and Xenophon are standouts here). But those thinkers work is simply lost to us, or was never written down (Socrates for example never wrote down his teaching and it was controverial of Plato to do so).
Aristotle is one of the worst examples to give for evidence of the "lone genius", in any case. His work is clearly the output of constant dialogue with his students and with his contemporaries. It primarily consists of considering the various pre-Socratic, Platonic, Sophist, and other philosophical views of his time, and showing how they don't solve pressing philosophical problems (the aporia) then forming an argument which adopts parts of their thinking and rejects others so that the philosophical impasse can be overcome. If anything he's a synthetic thinker, a unifier of the whole of Greek thought (that is his particular genius). He's nothing without his contemporaries.
Aristotle is one of the worst examples to give for evidence of the "lone genius", in any case. His work is clearly the output of constant dialogue with his students and with his contemporaries. It primarily consists of considering the various pre-Socratic, Platonic, Sophist, and other philosophical views of his time, and showing how they don't solve pressing philosophical problems (the aporia) then forming an argument which adopts parts of their thinking and rejects others so that the philosophical impasse can be overcome. If anything he's a synthetic thinker, a unifier of the whole of Greek thought (that is his particular genius). He's nothing without his contemporaries.
I think the "lone" part of the phrase is what's problematic. I don't think people intend to claim that they worked entirely on their own in isolation. I interpret it more as having been noticeably in a league of their own; possessing some special vision or quality that separated them from their peers.
The same thing comes up all the time with Steve Jobs, people will say variants of "he's nothing without his contemporaries." And yet, he somehow managed to be the driving force that brought all those people together to create some amazing things, and those contemporaries believed in him. I guess it does just come down to differing philosophies where some people are unhappy with glorifying individual efforts.
The same thing comes up all the time with Steve Jobs, people will say variants of "he's nothing without his contemporaries." And yet, he somehow managed to be the driving force that brought all those people together to create some amazing things, and those contemporaries believed in him. I guess it does just come down to differing philosophies where some people are unhappy with glorifying individual efforts.
> What important point is being made by nitpicking and tearing down people who - for perhaps a complex set of reasons including luck - have managed to reach legendary hero status? Why not just let them have it, let people have their heroes?
That you see any of that in this sub-thread is an example of how both "sides" of this issue (Jesus, why are there sides? And this article is entirely part of the problem) are talking/writing straight past one another (not to blame you for that being the case—you see those things in this sub-thread, meanwhile I didn't intend them in my posts and don't see them at all in mine or others').
That you see any of that in this sub-thread is an example of how both "sides" of this issue (Jesus, why are there sides? And this article is entirely part of the problem) are talking/writing straight past one another (not to blame you for that being the case—you see those things in this sub-thread, meanwhile I didn't intend them in my posts and don't see them at all in mine or others').
Wasn't it Newton himself who said: "if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"? Looks like a pretty strong rebuttal of the "lone genius" POV.
I think there's a difference between collaboration to gather information..
and being on part of a team that directs the goal of an idea.
And yet - why are so few others capable of standing on the shoulders of said giants? Here I am, with more giants' shoulders to stand on, if I wished it, with easy access to vast wealth of information that Newton (or someone living in the 1980's) couldn't even dream of - and yet - my contributions to calculus are precisely zero.
I studied drumming for 6 years and could easily be outmatched (and have been) skill-wise by a 5-year-old with talent.
Are there just no "geniuses" at all? Could anyone paint the Sistine Chapel? Carve out David? Paint the Mona Lisa? Play drums for Led Zeppelin? Invent new fields in mathematics? Is 99.9999% of humanity just ... what? lazy?
I studied drumming for 6 years and could easily be outmatched (and have been) skill-wise by a 5-year-old with talent.
Are there just no "geniuses" at all? Could anyone paint the Sistine Chapel? Carve out David? Paint the Mona Lisa? Play drums for Led Zeppelin? Invent new fields in mathematics? Is 99.9999% of humanity just ... what? lazy?
back in Newton's era there was less competition and the intellectual barriers to entry were lower. Knowing calculus was enough to be a genius. now you need to invent a new type of math. Things have become so much harder that in many instances outside help is necessary. But it also makes genius more necessary too. It just means more help and having more genius.
There was less competition but it was also tremendously difficult to even see what others are doing, or to learn from them, or to even talk to them....just being in possession of scientific texts was enough to get you killed not too long before Newton's time. That makes his accomplishments more impressive to me, not less.
Here's an analogy.
I'd be more impressed by a medieval European serf if that serf could create the Intel 8086 than by you if you designed the next AMD 32-core processor.
Here's an analogy.
I'd be more impressed by a medieval European serf if that serf could create the Intel 8086 than by you if you designed the next AMD 32-core processor.
I'm not an expert but I seem recall that other people were working concurrently on related, maybe tangential, questions for most of the other "great ideas" mentioned in the article
Didn't Einstein strike such a hit precisely because his (new) approach solved sought after problems? The people who helped define the problem have a large chunk of merit, in my opinion. There's no need for a theory in a vacuum.
Didn't Einstein strike such a hit precisely because his (new) approach solved sought after problems? The people who helped define the problem have a large chunk of merit, in my opinion. There's no need for a theory in a vacuum.
Einstein generated multiple original game changing insights across multiple domains.
There were people who might have generated one new Einstein insight on their own - Minkowski and Hilbert were both on their way towards GR after SR was presented - but no one else was even remotely likely to have generated all of them.
There were people who might have generated one new Einstein insight on their own - Minkowski and Hilbert were both on their way towards GR after SR was presented - but no one else was even remotely likely to have generated all of them.
IIRC, Einstein's biggest insight was cutting the Gordian Knot that other physicists faced when looking at the universal speed limit of the speed of light. Others tried to work around it. Einstein said "what would I have to do to make that true and keep other physics".
Newton didn't just do calculus, he also structured the laws of physics. And it is pretty likely that Leibniz discovered calculus by working backwards from Netwons laws of physics, since if you have the laws of movement clearly shown like that then discovering calculus is a lot easier. Note that Newton created calculus in his quest to do the laws of motion, so he didn't publish it.
Edit: Also Newton discovered the calculus of variations and applied it to a bunch of problems, can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_minimal_resistance_...
It is the basis for almost all graduate level physics courses we have today and is way beyond regular calculus. Would likely have taken a few hundred years before it was discovered without Newton.
Edit: Also Newton discovered the calculus of variations and applied it to a bunch of problems, can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_minimal_resistance_...
It is the basis for almost all graduate level physics courses we have today and is way beyond regular calculus. Would likely have taken a few hundred years before it was discovered without Newton.
An idea of calculus was already found in ancient Greece.
Archimedes used it to calculate the area of parabola by assigning a 'weight' to a line, and using a leverage to balance it.
There is a good Numberphile YT about it called 'Parabolas and Archimedes'
There is a good Numberphile YT about it called 'Parabolas and Archimedes'
I've always thought that the "Myth of the Lone Genius" is a bit of a "motte-bailey" format argument, where an aggressive, undefendable stance is advertised, and then when challenged the person who is making the argument retreats back into a more believable stance. The bailey, in this case, is "no one person is truly responsible for progress or breakthroughs, and everyone's contribution matters", which is ridiculous, and the motte is "no man is an island, and all breakthroughs rely on the actions of others", which is obviously true.
I believe people that make the bailey form of the above argument want to believe that they're important, and want their contributions to be measured on the same scale that great people's accomplishments are measured on. If there's no such thing as the Lone Genius, then your lazy dissertation on a topic no one really cares about matters in the same way that the Bryce-Codd paper on data normalization matters, because "everyone's work is important".
I believe people that make the bailey form of the above argument want to believe that they're important, and want their contributions to be measured on the same scale that great people's accomplishments are measured on. If there's no such thing as the Lone Genius, then your lazy dissertation on a topic no one really cares about matters in the same way that the Bryce-Codd paper on data normalization matters, because "everyone's work is important".
> "no one person is truly responsible for progress or breakthroughs, and everyone's contribution matters", which is ridiculous, and the motte is "no man is an island, and all breakthroughs rely on the actions of others", which is obviously true.
I think you are missing here the real core of the "Myth of the Lone Genius" argument which is not to claim that lone geniuses don't exist (e.g. Ramanujan, far more than some of these other examples) but rather to reject the argument that progress is mostly made by them, or can be best understood by focusing on them.
The argument boils down to: everyone's contributions are clearly not equivalent, but the vast majority of real progress is a collective effort; and that by focusing on individuals we are less efficient at learning what is effective.
I think you are missing here the real core of the "Myth of the Lone Genius" argument which is not to claim that lone geniuses don't exist (e.g. Ramanujan, far more than some of these other examples) but rather to reject the argument that progress is mostly made by them, or can be best understood by focusing on them.
The argument boils down to: everyone's contributions are clearly not equivalent, but the vast majority of real progress is a collective effort; and that by focusing on individuals we are less efficient at learning what is effective.
The GP comment itself is a motte-Bailey. I’m willing to bet they will settle for some less energetic form of their original argument that the myth of the lone genius is a case of sour grapes.
See also Walter Pitts.
Ramanujan is certainly a better example than Newton or Aristotle. There were a lot of geniuses I would highlight over them if I was looking for individual talent.
No, Newton is exceptional. It can be argued that he did more to progress physics and maths than everyone before him combined. He did so many things, but people just say "Oh Leibniz replicated one of the things after having seen the derived works of Newton" and dismiss him after that.
Newton started the Calculus of Variations, one of the most powerful methods we have for calculating things. It wasn't until Euler 100 years later that the rest of the world began to properly understand what he did then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations
Newton started the Calculus of Variations, one of the most powerful methods we have for calculating things. It wasn't until Euler 100 years later that the rest of the world began to properly understand what he did then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations
Newton was around (preceded by and followed by) great scientific discovery. Calculus of variations was also worked on by Bernoulli, for instance, who discovered it independently. And Leibniz seems to have as good a claim to being first as Newton does. Newton built heavily on Kepler for both math and the sciences.
I'm not saying Newton didn't do great work. He just seems a poor example of a single lone genius. He was brilliant and alive at a time when a lot of exciting changes were coming around. Those combined to make him great. Just not a sole genius.
I'm not saying Newton didn't do great work. He just seems a poor example of a single lone genius. He was brilliant and alive at a time when a lot of exciting changes were coming around. Those combined to make him great. Just not a sole genius.
When it comes down to it, I think the lone genius is overestimated in common understanding and the rebuttal overcorrects.
It usually takes quite a lot of expertise to recognize what someone truly accomplished or even to appreciate or be explained.
The lone genius tends to do something which has its time come, usually a bit ahead of schedule.
In science the pattern tends to be long periods of incremental buildup of large volumes of straightforward work interspersed with sort of phase transitions often (but not always) triggered by the lone genius. (see also Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
The pieces will all come into place for a significant change waiting for a trigger. The lone genius is the one who does this early. Not in a vacuum but also not in a crowd.
It usually takes quite a lot of expertise to recognize what someone truly accomplished or even to appreciate or be explained.
The lone genius tends to do something which has its time come, usually a bit ahead of schedule.
In science the pattern tends to be long periods of incremental buildup of large volumes of straightforward work interspersed with sort of phase transitions often (but not always) triggered by the lone genius. (see also Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
The pieces will all come into place for a significant change waiting for a trigger. The lone genius is the one who does this early. Not in a vacuum but also not in a crowd.
This seems a bit contradictory. You say that the lone genius is often overestimated, then you attribute Kuhnian paradigm shifts to these lone geniuses.
Perhaps it is better to be skeptical about the idea of paradigm shifts. They are often portrayed as some kind of phase transition, but they are usually (or always?) foreshadowed by a generation of debate, and when history books look back, they only present a retrospective consensus on that imagined consensus which never actually existed in the debates of the day.
Perhaps it is better to be skeptical about the idea of paradigm shifts. They are often portrayed as some kind of phase transition, but they are usually (or always?) foreshadowed by a generation of debate, and when history books look back, they only present a retrospective consensus on that imagined consensus which never actually existed in the debates of the day.
>>If there's no such thing as the Lone Genius, then your lazy dissertation on a topic no one really cares about matters in the same way that the Bryce-Codd paper on data normalization matters, because "everyone's work is important".
I think it is about not comparing the top 100 people in a field. This would already exclude the lazy/dissertation folk.
I think it is about not comparing the top 100 people in a field. This would already exclude the lazy/dissertation folk.
Either "Raymond F. Boyce and Edgar F. Codd" was some kind of bizarrely complicated pseudonym or neither of them were lone geniuses.
Everyone interprets the myth differently. I interpreted it as "most breakthroughs and progresses don't come from lone geniuses, but large groups of career scientists". For example, there is no lone genius behind the mRNA vaccine breakthrough, but a few universities and well-funded companies with many scientists working on them over a long period of time. Take all important progresses and breakthroughs, the vast vast majority of them are coming from this kind of environment. There is the occasional one-person operation, being the sole author of an influential paper. But the vast vast majority of influential papers have many co-authors.
I am not saying the above is true. I don't work in science and I am not too familiar with the state of the scientific world. I am saying that when I heard about the "Myth of the Lone Genius", that's what I thought it meant.
I am not saying the above is true. I don't work in science and I am not too familiar with the state of the scientific world. I am saying that when I heard about the "Myth of the Lone Genius", that's what I thought it meant.
Similar interpretation here. In the spirit of broadening the internet's vocabulary of 'meh', as per TLDR, I would like to propose an acronym for this category of perspective.
WTMTDE: Way too meta to deserve eyeballs.
WTMTDE: Way too meta to deserve eyeballs.
My theory is that it's a lot easier to get WORK done when you're not part of a group.
When teams form... group dynamics take place and this includes politics and conformity and social cohesion requirements. Teams demand a 'team player' that they can 'drink a beer with' which means group dynamics becomes as important, if not more important then the work being done which adds a lot of overhead to working, I.e. playing politics, selling your ideas over others, office chitchat, forging alliances to get your ideas done, etc.
Anyone whose worked in an office knows what I'm talking about.
You can't just show up and passionately go to work, there's a whole element of social interaction involved.
And often in teams people are promoted who are better at maintaining social cohesion than performing the actual work and these likable people begin to dictate the goal as much if not more than the people with the deep knowledge who put less effort into building relationships than they do into doing the work.
So the nature of a group/team tends to select for people who put a priority on maintaining social cohesion versus people who are extremely focused and knowledgeable and passionate about the work.
So a genius, if they have a choice, is pretty much always going operate alone or in groups of one or two
Just a theory.
Also:
There's a big difference between collaboration....and being a part of a team that dictates the direction of a goal.
When teams form... group dynamics take place and this includes politics and conformity and social cohesion requirements. Teams demand a 'team player' that they can 'drink a beer with' which means group dynamics becomes as important, if not more important then the work being done which adds a lot of overhead to working, I.e. playing politics, selling your ideas over others, office chitchat, forging alliances to get your ideas done, etc.
Anyone whose worked in an office knows what I'm talking about.
You can't just show up and passionately go to work, there's a whole element of social interaction involved.
And often in teams people are promoted who are better at maintaining social cohesion than performing the actual work and these likable people begin to dictate the goal as much if not more than the people with the deep knowledge who put less effort into building relationships than they do into doing the work.
So the nature of a group/team tends to select for people who put a priority on maintaining social cohesion versus people who are extremely focused and knowledgeable and passionate about the work.
So a genius, if they have a choice, is pretty much always going operate alone or in groups of one or two
Just a theory.
Also:
There's a big difference between collaboration....and being a part of a team that dictates the direction of a goal.
Author here - Well said, and this is definitely something like I was going for, but you probably said it more clearly.
Hey thanks! Great article by the way! Very thought provoking, I think you did a great job explaining it.
Thanks for writing it!
It's nice to hear someone else shares some of the same ideas I've been thinking for a while now.
Thanks man, really appreciate the kind words! Sign up for the substack!
Sure, we shouldn’t have this naive view that these so-called solitary geniuses work 1000% on their own without any input whatsoever from other people, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t do most of the heavy lifting.
Seems like a reasonable middle ground, and therefore more or less destined to be lost in a sea of extremes.
Seems like a reasonable middle ground, and therefore more or less destined to be lost in a sea of extremes.
Seems like a reasonable middle ground that doesn't support the author's premise, either.
And yet, it's a direct quote from the article.
Or rephrasing it: The 10X scientist exists.
I would say more like the zero to one scientist exists.
> The 10X scientist exists.
...because they had 10X more patience and love. Likely also better pedagogical materials and better teachers.
...because they had 10X more patience and love. Likely also better pedagogical materials and better teachers.
I suppose comments like this are what got the author to write the blog post.
Genetics also matter and we as a society should make sure we foster the potential of people like the 10X scientist. I have a great memory - my brother however, has an encyclopedic memory. He doesn't forget things that he reads. I will never be like, regardless of my environment.
But most people aren't in the 99th percentile of genetics so emphasizing the fact that most innovations do come from collaboration is helpful for society. However, we should still emphasis that there truly are some "rockstars" out there and make sure their environment matches up to their genetics.
Genetics also matter and we as a society should make sure we foster the potential of people like the 10X scientist. I have a great memory - my brother however, has an encyclopedic memory. He doesn't forget things that he reads. I will never be like, regardless of my environment.
But most people aren't in the 99th percentile of genetics so emphasizing the fact that most innovations do come from collaboration is helpful for society. However, we should still emphasis that there truly are some "rockstars" out there and make sure their environment matches up to their genetics.
I'm not sure we have the ability to identify the rockstars except in hindsight.
Do we have any reason to believe that, much to my distaste, IQ is not the metric you want, being correlated with all the outcomes you'd expect in future 'rockstars'?
I think it takes more than IQ to make a profound discovery (c.f. the remark about talent lost to sweatshops), but that doesn't make the unlucky person not a genius. Just an unrealized one.
I think it takes more than IQ to make a profound discovery (c.f. the remark about talent lost to sweatshops), but that doesn't make the unlucky person not a genius. Just an unrealized one.
IQ is one thing, but I've found that IQ doesn't seem to correlate with creativity at all. Creativity as in "the ability to come up with novel useful ideas", not the bad definition psychology uses "the ability to come up with lots of crap ideas".
Not sure if we actually have a test for creativity, but it seems like some people have a very good ability to see what is useful and where to put their effort. And some people with very good IQ scores are really bad at it. They can solve math equations really well, but when it comes to discovering new useful math they are completely lost since they don't have the creativity to understand what new things are actually interesting.
Not sure if we actually have a test for creativity, but it seems like some people have a very good ability to see what is useful and where to put their effort. And some people with very good IQ scores are really bad at it. They can solve math equations really well, but when it comes to discovering new useful math they are completely lost since they don't have the creativity to understand what new things are actually interesting.
I'd encourage you to look into Cognitive Load Theory[0].
A key finding is that people are not creative generally but are instead creative relative to their skills.
e.g. if you are not a skilled programmer your programming is very unlikely to be creative except insofar as it relates to a non-programming skill that you have acquired.
This suggests that most creative solutions will come from people who learn many things. You'd expect people with high IQ and conscientiousness (implies being organized and driven) to be the most creative group. This lines up with the best evidence I've found, and anecdotally matched my experiences as an educator and continues to as a software developer.
I think this may also explain your own experiences. The model predicts that a smart person who learns a lot less about a topic than their less smart peer would be less creative thinking the topic.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-...
A key finding is that people are not creative generally but are instead creative relative to their skills.
e.g. if you are not a skilled programmer your programming is very unlikely to be creative except insofar as it relates to a non-programming skill that you have acquired.
This suggests that most creative solutions will come from people who learn many things. You'd expect people with high IQ and conscientiousness (implies being organized and driven) to be the most creative group. This lines up with the best evidence I've found, and anecdotally matched my experiences as an educator and continues to as a software developer.
I think this may also explain your own experiences. The model predicts that a smart person who learns a lot less about a topic than their less smart peer would be less creative thinking the topic.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-...
I honestly don't like this line of thought. I got nothing against you personally, just against the general idea, which I also see expressed as "natural talent". Let me explain.
I have had a pretty tough life, never had much of a privileged situation, but I achieved things people express jealousy over very frequently, and it's often attributed to "being a genius" instead of the actual effort and sacrifices it took.
That line of thought reduces all the effort me and others had to go through to "luck". It wasn't us, it was the genes that helped us out. It's dehumanizing the person and their achievements and reducing them to a perceived "luck of the draw" that maybe if you examine the case in detail you might find out there's no luck at all in there. It was our own choices and priorities what got us somewhere, not some funky "luck".
This works both ways too. How do you encourage someone that is sad because they can't do the things you can do? You can't precisely tell them "if you weren't playing videogames all day you could also learn these things" without looking like a complete asshole. I wish this "genetic superiority" argument just vanished so we can let people's decisions and efforts shine through. Similarly, people assumes you don't need help ever because "you are a genius", you can figure it out.
My genes aren't even that good. I got a genetic syndrome that will cut my life short anytime just like it did to my only brother. I really don't want to hear how lucky I am for my genetics, it just makes me furious when I remember medical science has told me I am living on borrowed time and I just came out of a close call from gangrene due to tissues tearing up randomly. You can probably understand why I think this myth, in regards to "things you can do in life" really upsets me. I've witnessed people with Down's syndrome learn things an Average Joe considers difficult, and according to that myth that should be impossible, all because they really wanted to do the thing.
Again, I'm not attacking you and I'm positive you don't have any bad intent in your belief, but you can probably see why I'd disagree with the notion. It's troubling, really, and it diminishes accomplishments done voluntarily to luck. Genetics don't give you desire or the ability to compromise, that's all on the personality, and people needs to see this. There would be way less people beating themselves down over not being a genius and they would instead see that they can't rise as high because they aren't really willing. But you can change that, unlike your genes. By removing that mental lock that makes people believe they don't have what it takes, I'm sure more people would accept their shortcomings and improve on them, instead of leaving it as some hypothetical act of God they cannot possibly overcome.
I have had a pretty tough life, never had much of a privileged situation, but I achieved things people express jealousy over very frequently, and it's often attributed to "being a genius" instead of the actual effort and sacrifices it took.
That line of thought reduces all the effort me and others had to go through to "luck". It wasn't us, it was the genes that helped us out. It's dehumanizing the person and their achievements and reducing them to a perceived "luck of the draw" that maybe if you examine the case in detail you might find out there's no luck at all in there. It was our own choices and priorities what got us somewhere, not some funky "luck".
This works both ways too. How do you encourage someone that is sad because they can't do the things you can do? You can't precisely tell them "if you weren't playing videogames all day you could also learn these things" without looking like a complete asshole. I wish this "genetic superiority" argument just vanished so we can let people's decisions and efforts shine through. Similarly, people assumes you don't need help ever because "you are a genius", you can figure it out.
My genes aren't even that good. I got a genetic syndrome that will cut my life short anytime just like it did to my only brother. I really don't want to hear how lucky I am for my genetics, it just makes me furious when I remember medical science has told me I am living on borrowed time and I just came out of a close call from gangrene due to tissues tearing up randomly. You can probably understand why I think this myth, in regards to "things you can do in life" really upsets me. I've witnessed people with Down's syndrome learn things an Average Joe considers difficult, and according to that myth that should be impossible, all because they really wanted to do the thing.
Again, I'm not attacking you and I'm positive you don't have any bad intent in your belief, but you can probably see why I'd disagree with the notion. It's troubling, really, and it diminishes accomplishments done voluntarily to luck. Genetics don't give you desire or the ability to compromise, that's all on the personality, and people needs to see this. There would be way less people beating themselves down over not being a genius and they would instead see that they can't rise as high because they aren't really willing. But you can change that, unlike your genes. By removing that mental lock that makes people believe they don't have what it takes, I'm sure more people would accept their shortcomings and improve on them, instead of leaving it as some hypothetical act of God they cannot possibly overcome.
I think there was a disconnect. In the context of my reply I was assuming that your opinion is what society generally holds true. I, too, believe this. It's talked about in books like the Growth Mindset and that book resonates with me a lot.
I was merely trying to say that these two ideas (1) you don't have to be genetically gifted to achieve greatness and (2) some people are just genetically gifted and they may very well reach ideas that most others won't - even in solitude - are not incongruent ideas.
The vast majority of people are not given great genetic aptitudes for things so reminding society that normal people can come together and create wonderful things is truly helpful. However, we should also recognize that some people, like von Neumann, Gauss, Newton, etc, are just on another level - and we as a society should also foster the potential of these people.
We can have both, we need both (since most people aren't like those three names above), and there's no reason we shouldn't try to embrace both ideas.
I was merely trying to say that these two ideas (1) you don't have to be genetically gifted to achieve greatness and (2) some people are just genetically gifted and they may very well reach ideas that most others won't - even in solitude - are not incongruent ideas.
The vast majority of people are not given great genetic aptitudes for things so reminding society that normal people can come together and create wonderful things is truly helpful. However, we should also recognize that some people, like von Neumann, Gauss, Newton, etc, are just on another level - and we as a society should also foster the potential of these people.
We can have both, we need both (since most people aren't like those three names above), and there's no reason we shouldn't try to embrace both ideas.
The environment makes the 10Xer as much as they make themself.
Did you know it's impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps?
https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/pul...
https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/pul...
Teachers don’t matter. Students with the same teacher have absurdly different outcomes. And countless people have access to the same textbooks. Quantum mechanics isn’t locked away in some secret monastery
There's also a difference between collaboration and being on a team or group that directs the goal.
It's arguable that lone genius collaborates but are the sole director of their idea and goal.
It's arguable that lone genius collaborates but are the sole director of their idea and goal.
Sounds like this guy is trying to be contrarian for the sake of contrarian . Even if someone works alone, they still derive knowledge from outside. And a lot of important research papers and findings haver 2 or more authors.
Author needs to read a book.
The examples of true lone geniuses, to refute the claim they don't exist, are all bad. For different reasons. Ranging from lack of evidence to obviously borrowed priors.
Carefully picking cherries doesn't lead to truth. For truth, the author should try chopping that cherry tree down. What is the cultural need for the myth of the lone genius rooted in?
The examples of true lone geniuses, to refute the claim they don't exist, are all bad. For different reasons. Ranging from lack of evidence to obviously borrowed priors.
Carefully picking cherries doesn't lead to truth. For truth, the author should try chopping that cherry tree down. What is the cultural need for the myth of the lone genius rooted in?
History (ancient and recent) is full of geniuses who came up with a revolutionary idea largely on their own
Not quite. They are always building in the backs of those who came before, even ( and sometime especially ) the failures.
Simultaneous independent invention is pretty strong evidence for this. It still takes a uniquely talented person, but when a certain critical mass of prior learning and information is achieved, then for those uniquely talented people the breakthroughs may be the logical next step as they work through the problem. See Newton & Leibniz re:calculus as an example. The author dismisses this example, but both did truly do the heavy lifting, independent of each other, but still with the assistance of collaboration and shared thoughts.
The problem is that the author seems to not want to admit to degrees of "lone-ness". Either a genius did most of the heavy lifting, or they did not-- the author does not seem interested in examining the nuances of how-- and how much-- an individual achieved through relationships with other thinkers resent & past.
Even if we were to grant (incorrectly) that Newton would have achieved everything he achieved without any assistance, feedback, discussions, etc with other thinkers of his time, it would be truly ridiculous to think he would have achieved as much if not for everything & everyone who came before them.
In short, some genius intellects still benefit from fertile soil, and this does not at all take away from their incredible achievements that still required a genius intellects to put together. The author seems to think acknowledging this somehow takes away from the achievement: it does not. If anything, it elevates it: The genius takes everything that came before and the intellects of their own time, synthesizes it and then transcends it. That transcendence is incredible, but it did not occur in isolation.
And the of course there are discoveries that are achieved through gradual, often tedious chipping away at a problem. This is a lot of science, even if the massive paradigm shifts (See Thomas Kuhn's work on this topic) may come from a single unique catalyst. The catalyst needs something to catalyze though.
Not quite. They are always building in the backs of those who came before, even ( and sometime especially ) the failures.
Simultaneous independent invention is pretty strong evidence for this. It still takes a uniquely talented person, but when a certain critical mass of prior learning and information is achieved, then for those uniquely talented people the breakthroughs may be the logical next step as they work through the problem. See Newton & Leibniz re:calculus as an example. The author dismisses this example, but both did truly do the heavy lifting, independent of each other, but still with the assistance of collaboration and shared thoughts.
The problem is that the author seems to not want to admit to degrees of "lone-ness". Either a genius did most of the heavy lifting, or they did not-- the author does not seem interested in examining the nuances of how-- and how much-- an individual achieved through relationships with other thinkers resent & past.
Even if we were to grant (incorrectly) that Newton would have achieved everything he achieved without any assistance, feedback, discussions, etc with other thinkers of his time, it would be truly ridiculous to think he would have achieved as much if not for everything & everyone who came before them.
In short, some genius intellects still benefit from fertile soil, and this does not at all take away from their incredible achievements that still required a genius intellects to put together. The author seems to think acknowledging this somehow takes away from the achievement: it does not. If anything, it elevates it: The genius takes everything that came before and the intellects of their own time, synthesizes it and then transcends it. That transcendence is incredible, but it did not occur in isolation.
And the of course there are discoveries that are achieved through gradual, often tedious chipping away at a problem. This is a lot of science, even if the massive paradigm shifts (See Thomas Kuhn's work on this topic) may come from a single unique catalyst. The catalyst needs something to catalyze though.
I think people are getting hung up too much on the "their own" part vs "full of geniuses" part.
Ok, fine, if three - instead of one - people - out of billions - came up with a revolutionary new idea - that does not, to me, discount the idea of the "lone genius", just because 2 > 1 and we can't strictly use the word "lone" anymore.
The idea would be discounted, if say, 500 million people all invented calculus independently of each other over a period of 5 months.
Ok, fine, if three - instead of one - people - out of billions - came up with a revolutionary new idea - that does not, to me, discount the idea of the "lone genius", just because 2 > 1 and we can't strictly use the word "lone" anymore.
The idea would be discounted, if say, 500 million people all invented calculus independently of each other over a period of 5 months.
The vast majority of geniuses were lucky enough to be born into families that were very much above the lower socioeconomic classes of their times. These were not "lone" geniuses, not when everything about their early lives gave them advantages above the majority that allowed them to pursue a life that left room for intellectual pursuit.
Whether it's 1 or 10 that made discoveries around the same time, they have still taken advantage of 1) every piece of knowledge they've encountered that came before them and 2) At least limited, and often not very limited, collaboration or "bouncing ideas of off" people around them. 3) The circumstances of their birth. These can't be discounted.
These are, however, matters of degree, and as I said it can still take a unique intellect to put the pieces together. That can't be discounted, but there still must be pieces to put together. Even Ramanujan had tutors from a very early age who taught him quite a bit, along with multiple books on the subject of mathematics, to help him along his way. Each of these sources had in turn built upon many years and many minds' worth of knowledge. Ramanujan is probably the most "lone" of lone geniuses that I can think of, and still he would likely not have achieved nearly as much without that foundational knowledge.
This is not just about simultaneous discovery-- although that does demonstrate the "fertile ground" aspect of things. It is fundamentally about the sum total of knowledge that came before a genius and the social network of very smart, though perhaps not genius intellects, that served as sounding boards, critics, etc.
And though the author of this article wants to discount the "luck" aspect of these individuals, it is extremely notable that most if not all of the individuals that spring to mind came from circumstances of birth that allowed for their intellect to flourish. They were born into circumstances of middle class or higher where resources supplemental to the basic necessities required for life & sustenance could be devoted to their education & leisure time to pursue their interests: Einstein was not born into a working class family with parents confined to jobs of physical labor. Newton's family similarly was not of the labor class. Nor was Ramanujan's. Or Leibniz's.
Whether it's 1 or 10 that made discoveries around the same time, they have still taken advantage of 1) every piece of knowledge they've encountered that came before them and 2) At least limited, and often not very limited, collaboration or "bouncing ideas of off" people around them. 3) The circumstances of their birth. These can't be discounted.
These are, however, matters of degree, and as I said it can still take a unique intellect to put the pieces together. That can't be discounted, but there still must be pieces to put together. Even Ramanujan had tutors from a very early age who taught him quite a bit, along with multiple books on the subject of mathematics, to help him along his way. Each of these sources had in turn built upon many years and many minds' worth of knowledge. Ramanujan is probably the most "lone" of lone geniuses that I can think of, and still he would likely not have achieved nearly as much without that foundational knowledge.
This is not just about simultaneous discovery-- although that does demonstrate the "fertile ground" aspect of things. It is fundamentally about the sum total of knowledge that came before a genius and the social network of very smart, though perhaps not genius intellects, that served as sounding boards, critics, etc.
And though the author of this article wants to discount the "luck" aspect of these individuals, it is extremely notable that most if not all of the individuals that spring to mind came from circumstances of birth that allowed for their intellect to flourish. They were born into circumstances of middle class or higher where resources supplemental to the basic necessities required for life & sustenance could be devoted to their education & leisure time to pursue their interests: Einstein was not born into a working class family with parents confined to jobs of physical labor. Newton's family similarly was not of the labor class. Nor was Ramanujan's. Or Leibniz's.
Author here - Yes to this.
Of course. Knowledge is always collective. We hugely underestimate how much knowledge is externalised in cultural firmware, passed down from generation to generation, and only accumulated - when it accumulates at all - because of inventions like writing, math formalisms, cultural and creative traditions, and the scientific method.
Without a head start from previous generations you get a rather dumb monkey. Even a genius dumb monkey is going to be extremely limited in what it can do.
Even so - an educated genius monkey with the right life opportunities can still generate lone game changing insights that most monkeys can't.
Without that kind of step change insight domains will stagnate, sometimes for centuries. No amount of collective cultural activity of any kind will move them on.
Without a head start from previous generations you get a rather dumb monkey. Even a genius dumb monkey is going to be extremely limited in what it can do.
Even so - an educated genius monkey with the right life opportunities can still generate lone game changing insights that most monkeys can't.
Without that kind of step change insight domains will stagnate, sometimes for centuries. No amount of collective cultural activity of any kind will move them on.
Yes, I generally agree with this. Fertile soil may abound for countless years before just the right seed takes hold. The presence of fertile soil should not eclipse what the seed becomes, but neither should "what it becomes" be seen as independent from that fertile soil.
If there is a "myth of the myth", it is only that the concept of "lone genius" focuses too much on the achievements of the seed, while the "myth of the lone genius" focuses too much on the fertile soil. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
If there is a "myth of the myth", it is only that the concept of "lone genius" focuses too much on the achievements of the seed, while the "myth of the lone genius" focuses too much on the fertile soil. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
The problem with the word genius is that ideas are need based. A lot of the most forward thinking innovations are made by people who are competing with as few as hundreds, or even dozens of people who are qualified to even work on the problem in the first place. Sure it's a nice achievement but I'm not into calling it genius. As a society it probably makes the most sense to develop standards such that more people can have the opportunity to work on the problem than to go crazy over a single person.
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould
You can use a lot of brain power just surviving in extremely hostile situations.
We can't prove that. It feels good to believe it, sure, but it's also possible that precisely zero people working in sweatshops have ever had Einstein's talent.
Sure, it's easy to say - take away the sweatshops, provide them with UBI and voila - suddenly we have 5000 Einsteins on our hands.
But it's also possible we'll still have zero. It's not like we don't have millions of people leading "cushy" (by comparison lives) in the West already, yet - no more Einsteins?
Sure, it's easy to say - take away the sweatshops, provide them with UBI and voila - suddenly we have 5000 Einsteins on our hands.
But it's also possible we'll still have zero. It's not like we don't have millions of people leading "cushy" (by comparison lives) in the West already, yet - no more Einsteins?
Why specifically Einstein... 5000 cushy people isn't likely to produce an Einstein but could easily produce some great artist or engineer or other researcher.
Anyway about Einstein you need to think about how many physicists existed at his time that had the education to even work on a theory of relativity. It's probably about 5 thousand. Think about it in terms of sports, someone who is a 1 in 5000 talent probably wouldn't even make it onto a college sports team, but that's because sports is something we as a society support tremendously. Someone like Michael Jordan is 1 out of 10 million, cut down the overall population to 5000 and it's like celebrating the "genius" of a district middle school star.
Anyway about Einstein you need to think about how many physicists existed at his time that had the education to even work on a theory of relativity. It's probably about 5 thousand. Think about it in terms of sports, someone who is a 1 in 5000 talent probably wouldn't even make it onto a college sports team, but that's because sports is something we as a society support tremendously. Someone like Michael Jordan is 1 out of 10 million, cut down the overall population to 5000 and it's like celebrating the "genius" of a district middle school star.
It seems like we'd have to have been extremely lucky for the one Einstein to have been born where he was and not as a subsistence farmer if there were zero potential Einsteins among the subsistence farmer population.
We were extremely lucky, yes. Not to mention he was Jewish and being born, say, even just 15 years later than he was, could've meant he'd have ended up in concentration camp and we'd still have no theory of relativity. That's quite possible.
From a Bayesian perspective, I think we should consider the luck required for this hypothesis as a strike against it. In other words, if the hypothesis contends that observing an Einstein was very unlikely, then the fact that we did observe an Einstein is strong evidence against it.
“I don’t believe anything really revolutionary has ever been invented by a committee… i’m going to give you some advice that might be hard to take. That advice is: Work alone… not on the committee. Not on a team” — Steve Wozniak
Author here - great quote, this is very close to the spirit of my argument.
One metric that I have thought about is this: If this person had not existed, how long would it have been before someone else made the same discovery?
Something I noticed when I was in astronomy was that the most successful astronomers tended to do work that was high impact, but also, in a sense, obvious. But they would do that work faster than anyone else, get the first paper out, and let the citations roll in. (There was a good Twitter thread about this strategy here: https://twitter.com/neurobongo/status/1404208339295350792)
There is something to be said for this work! After all, it is important and someone needs to do it. But it seems to me that there have been singular figures who really discovered something that wasn't just "in the air," and that that's the sort of thing we reserve for the word "genius."
I'm still not completely convinced that this is the right metric though. There have been a number of scientists who are universally regarded as geniuses who discovered things that probably would have been discovered shortly thereafter if they hadn't existed. Poincaré was close to discovering the special theory of relativity when Einstein published his work. Leibniz discovered calculus at around the same time as Newton. Hilbert discovered the Einstein field equations at about the same time as Einstein. (Some sources say Hilbert was just five days earlier than Einstein.) The whole history of quantum mechanics seems like a mad dash by a group of brilliant physicists who were discovering one thing after another nearly every week in the early 20th century.
On the other hand, Poincaré, Leibniz, and Hilbert could all justifiably be called geniuses, too. So if two geniuses figure something out simultaneously, does that mean that they cancel each other out and neither of them were geniuses? Seems wrong. So I'm still not sure what the right metric is.
Something I noticed when I was in astronomy was that the most successful astronomers tended to do work that was high impact, but also, in a sense, obvious. But they would do that work faster than anyone else, get the first paper out, and let the citations roll in. (There was a good Twitter thread about this strategy here: https://twitter.com/neurobongo/status/1404208339295350792)
There is something to be said for this work! After all, it is important and someone needs to do it. But it seems to me that there have been singular figures who really discovered something that wasn't just "in the air," and that that's the sort of thing we reserve for the word "genius."
I'm still not completely convinced that this is the right metric though. There have been a number of scientists who are universally regarded as geniuses who discovered things that probably would have been discovered shortly thereafter if they hadn't existed. Poincaré was close to discovering the special theory of relativity when Einstein published his work. Leibniz discovered calculus at around the same time as Newton. Hilbert discovered the Einstein field equations at about the same time as Einstein. (Some sources say Hilbert was just five days earlier than Einstein.) The whole history of quantum mechanics seems like a mad dash by a group of brilliant physicists who were discovering one thing after another nearly every week in the early 20th century.
On the other hand, Poincaré, Leibniz, and Hilbert could all justifiably be called geniuses, too. So if two geniuses figure something out simultaneously, does that mean that they cancel each other out and neither of them were geniuses? Seems wrong. So I'm still not sure what the right metric is.
I'm reminded of gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium in evolution. https://necsi.edu/gradualism-and-punctuated-equilibrium
> Gradualism is selection and variation that happens more gradually. Over a short period of time it is hard to notice.
> In punctuated equilibrium, change comes in spurts. There is a period of very little change, and then one or a few huge changes occur, often through mutations in the genes of a few individuals.
This comparison becomes even more apparent if we use the original definition of meme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
> Gradualism is selection and variation that happens more gradually. Over a short period of time it is hard to notice.
> In punctuated equilibrium, change comes in spurts. There is a period of very little change, and then one or a few huge changes occur, often through mutations in the genes of a few individuals.
This comparison becomes even more apparent if we use the original definition of meme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
This was the most important part of the Malcolm Gladwell book. That chapter, *Trouble With Geniuses Part 2, compares the lack of success by super genius Chris Langan to Robert Oppenheimer who graduated with honors despite attempted murder of a university faculty.
Anybody who has submitted a proposal to a standards body knows this experience. It does not matter how amazing or ingenious the idea is. The most important thing is to achieve buy in from highly skeptical people. The idea can be garbage, but if there is enough charisma and popularity associated people will eagerly polish the idea for you.
The lone genius might build that amazing thing but it takes more to achieve adoption. Originality irrationally scares the shit out of people.
Anybody who has submitted a proposal to a standards body knows this experience. It does not matter how amazing or ingenious the idea is. The most important thing is to achieve buy in from highly skeptical people. The idea can be garbage, but if there is enough charisma and popularity associated people will eagerly polish the idea for you.
The lone genius might build that amazing thing but it takes more to achieve adoption. Originality irrationally scares the shit out of people.
Author here - well said, I shared your comment below. In situations like what you describe, cultural narratives and inspirational stories matter... swinging to far toward the myth of the lone genius might have negative effects, at least on the margins
I don’t think the “Myth of the Lone Genius” argues that the “lone genius” doesn’t exist, it argues that most progress comes from ordinary smarts and not lone genius, and that even the lonest of geniuses stand on the shoulders of more ordinary people.
This lost credibility as soon as it cited Einstein as an example of one of these "lone geniuses". He was anything but. He wasn't lone, and he wasn't a genius.
He happened to be born at a time and place in history when physics was rapidly going through change anyway. He was a correspondent of Caratheodory, whose mathematical work was essential for the development of general relativity. He was nearly beaten to the punch by Hilbert.
Einstein was smart, but lots of people in the world are smart without being called "lone geniuses".
He happened to be born at a time and place in history when physics was rapidly going through change anyway. He was a correspondent of Caratheodory, whose mathematical work was essential for the development of general relativity. He was nearly beaten to the punch by Hilbert.
Einstein was smart, but lots of people in the world are smart without being called "lone geniuses".
Stigler's Law of Eponomy is relevant to this discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy
Author here - you may enjoy another post of mine that mentions this - https://rogersbacon.substack.com/p/eponymous-laws-part-3-mis... and https://rogersbacon.substack.com/p/eponymous-laws-part-i-law...
Reminds me of Saunt Lora's Proposition from Neal Stephenson's Anathem :D
I think it's important to remember that there are two types of progress - evolutionary and revolutionary.
By numbers, advancements are overwhelmingly evolutionary - small steps in a predictable direction. If you want to be a scientist or an inventor or what have you, most of your career is going to be spent on these evolutionary steps. Such evolutionary work is well suited to teams and larger organizations, and results are a consequence of the amount of effort that goes in to them rather than individual competency.
However the revolutionary advances which shift our paradigms are extremely important, despite being very rare. Such revolutions can not be planned and thus are rarely the product of large scale collaboration. Maybe an individual has a moment of insight while taking a bath, perhaps some friends on a train have just the right conversation, but it's always a unique mind viewing the problem from a new perspective that upends everything. Yes that person is probably not literally cut off from all of society, but unless you're being ridiculously pedantic "lone genius" is a pretty good description.
While as stated it's incredibly dumb to bet everything on being one of these lone geniuses, the fact is societal advance does depend on large numbers of people cultivating unique minds that might glean such rare insights under the right circumstances. Statistically you are much more likely to be successful as an accountant than an artist, but how terrible would life be if therefore no one pursued art?
By numbers, advancements are overwhelmingly evolutionary - small steps in a predictable direction. If you want to be a scientist or an inventor or what have you, most of your career is going to be spent on these evolutionary steps. Such evolutionary work is well suited to teams and larger organizations, and results are a consequence of the amount of effort that goes in to them rather than individual competency.
However the revolutionary advances which shift our paradigms are extremely important, despite being very rare. Such revolutions can not be planned and thus are rarely the product of large scale collaboration. Maybe an individual has a moment of insight while taking a bath, perhaps some friends on a train have just the right conversation, but it's always a unique mind viewing the problem from a new perspective that upends everything. Yes that person is probably not literally cut off from all of society, but unless you're being ridiculously pedantic "lone genius" is a pretty good description.
While as stated it's incredibly dumb to bet everything on being one of these lone geniuses, the fact is societal advance does depend on large numbers of people cultivating unique minds that might glean such rare insights under the right circumstances. Statistically you are much more likely to be successful as an accountant than an artist, but how terrible would life be if therefore no one pursued art?
You are everything there is that you can experience. The things you see, hear, etc, are really just sensory inputs produced by your own organs. Higher abstractions such as your thoughts, ideas, etc, are built upon these inputs that you produced. By changing your narratives, your physiology, etc, you can change how you feel about the world, or "the world", so to speak. You are everything there is to you.
And then there is the I/O aspect to it. By interacting with these inputs and constructing models about "the world", you learn that you can receive future inputs that you want by outputting data (e.g. moving your hand to type these words, etc) based on the right simulations about "the world". You learn of your dependencies to abstractions such as "your parents", "friends", etc. It is in this way that you are not alone.
And then there is the I/O aspect to it. By interacting with these inputs and constructing models about "the world", you learn that you can receive future inputs that you want by outputting data (e.g. moving your hand to type these words, etc) based on the right simulations about "the world". You learn of your dependencies to abstractions such as "your parents", "friends", etc. It is in this way that you are not alone.
And then there is the feeling of meaning (as well as mythical experiences and the pursuit of "higher purposes"), that which reinforces the none-loneliness of existence. To be able to share your life/work with others, or connect with others at a profound level. That is something worth greater than your accomplishments.
Newton is one of the more solitary individuals I've studied, much more than Einstein or Liebniz or Feynman or Bohr. Newton had books of calculations unpublished when Halley asked him about gravity and the moon. Would Einstein sit on books and books of info without thinking to publish it?
Or, maybe, we recognize a genius only after their idea has been validated. It's the same situation as with "prophets".
Take 1000 people and ask them for an open ended prophecy. If one of 1000 gets something perfectly right, we will focus on that person... and ignore the fact that the other 999 failed to predict anything. Then hold that one person as a great prophet.
Dreams are 10 a penny - they say.
Not to say that people who managed to properly articulate ideas and put in the "capstone" for a theory aren't important or hold a lot of knowledge/wisdom.
But I don't understand why would Aristotle, Newton or Einstein support the idea that "Lone Genius Myth" is false.
Take 1000 people and ask them for an open ended prophecy. If one of 1000 gets something perfectly right, we will focus on that person... and ignore the fact that the other 999 failed to predict anything. Then hold that one person as a great prophet.
Dreams are 10 a penny - they say.
Not to say that people who managed to properly articulate ideas and put in the "capstone" for a theory aren't important or hold a lot of knowledge/wisdom.
But I don't understand why would Aristotle, Newton or Einstein support the idea that "Lone Genius Myth" is false.
As has been said in this thread many times, there is a middle ground here: geniuses exist, of course, but are not necessarily solely responsible for great leaps forward in progress.
What’s also worth mentioning is that geniuses stand on the shoulders of abstraction, the most powerful (and scary!) force known to man. The more and more we abstract away problems, the more and more geniuses can scaffold on top of that abstraction. This compounding effect is more responsible for innovation than the admittedly gifted and great individuals who channel it.
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” — Isaac Newton
What’s also worth mentioning is that geniuses stand on the shoulders of abstraction, the most powerful (and scary!) force known to man. The more and more we abstract away problems, the more and more geniuses can scaffold on top of that abstraction. This compounding effect is more responsible for innovation than the admittedly gifted and great individuals who channel it.
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” — Isaac Newton
I didn't even know this was a thing. So sad that we gotta come up with this politically correct historic revisionist nonsense that attempts to discredit the great minds of the past.
The way I understood the myth is that history tends to distill what were at the time collective achievements, and gradually ascribe them to one or two deified figureheads. It's not to say that those individuals were not geniuses, simply that as time passes, the context surrounding their discovery is naturally lost and then mysticized as some singular "eureka" moment instead of the more likely and relatable long progression of constructive concepts.
The person writing this article goes in hard but comes down a bit. Sure all work of genius is based on prior work but that does not take away that a lot of impressive work (Einstein, a lot of math, etc) was done alone in a room. Sure after a lot of reading but not with a lot of blah blah with collaborators at the time of the 'new'(evolutionary) invention. Seems like a bit of an angry article from someone with a grudge toward something to do with solitary inventors?
his grudge was with other people who have a grudge with solitary inventors. But, yea, pretty much
I am really split after reading this article. On the one hand it promotes „middle ground“ as in: surrounding community matters, on the other hand it demotes the contributions of these said geniuses.
For example: you cannot invent rocket powered spaceflight with 1000 mediocre engineers and unlimited resources, you would still need THAT ONE LONE GENIUS that assembles all puzzle pieces together. Soviets tried and they’ve ended up digging Koralev out of gulag to do it, US tried and they had to resort to literally giving an employment opportunity to a fucking Nazi. Not to diminish work effort of all side contributors, but its the master that makes the art of it.
Modern equivalent: El Anatsui. Lots of workers work on his „trash art“, but it is he, who composes the piece. Please do not dimish that.
They are not „lone“, but they ate still geniuses.
For example: you cannot invent rocket powered spaceflight with 1000 mediocre engineers and unlimited resources, you would still need THAT ONE LONE GENIUS that assembles all puzzle pieces together. Soviets tried and they’ve ended up digging Koralev out of gulag to do it, US tried and they had to resort to literally giving an employment opportunity to a fucking Nazi. Not to diminish work effort of all side contributors, but its the master that makes the art of it.
Modern equivalent: El Anatsui. Lots of workers work on his „trash art“, but it is he, who composes the piece. Please do not dimish that.
They are not „lone“, but they ate still geniuses.
> History (ancient and recent) is full of geniuses who came up with a revolutionary idea largely on their own - that’s why the archetype even exists in the first place (Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein to name the most obvious examples).
Wait, what now?
One of Newton's most famous quotes is, "if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" directly acknowledging his debt to those who came before him.
Furthermore, Newton invented calculus at roughly the same time as Leibniz (independently) discovered the same mathematical principles. To me, that strongly suggests that the groundwork had been laid and somebody (or multiple somebodies!) was ripe to make the breakthrough.
That doesn't mean Newton wasn't a genius, but I think it does suggest that the "Great Man theory of history" is false. Even geniuses are products of their environment and no genius is singular and irreplaceable.
Picking another example from the list above, Wallace independently proposed many of elements of the theory of natural selection: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zwvpsg8/revision/1
Wait, what now?
One of Newton's most famous quotes is, "if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" directly acknowledging his debt to those who came before him.
Furthermore, Newton invented calculus at roughly the same time as Leibniz (independently) discovered the same mathematical principles. To me, that strongly suggests that the groundwork had been laid and somebody (or multiple somebodies!) was ripe to make the breakthrough.
That doesn't mean Newton wasn't a genius, but I think it does suggest that the "Great Man theory of history" is false. Even geniuses are products of their environment and no genius is singular and irreplaceable.
Picking another example from the list above, Wallace independently proposed many of elements of the theory of natural selection: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zwvpsg8/revision/1
this author seems very upset. As though the current crop of "lone geniuses" they refer to is going to be tragically deterred by messaging that somehow convinces them that "lone geniuses don't even exist".
to that I would say this author maybe doesn't fully understand the "lone genius". If someone is truly the next Einstein or Newton, they're going to figure it out; they won't be overly deterred, and they will make use of things such as self-awareness, a slightly pathological level of hyperfocus, and of course quite often just plain arrogance.
Being able to cut through noise and inaccurate or mis-messaging by society is kind of a ground floor task for people who are going to change the world with something, so I think they'll be OK.
to that I would say this author maybe doesn't fully understand the "lone genius". If someone is truly the next Einstein or Newton, they're going to figure it out; they won't be overly deterred, and they will make use of things such as self-awareness, a slightly pathological level of hyperfocus, and of course quite often just plain arrogance.
Being able to cut through noise and inaccurate or mis-messaging by society is kind of a ground floor task for people who are going to change the world with something, so I think they'll be OK.
Author here - Not upset at all, but I can see why you would think that. The tone was perhaps overly-aggressive, but we are talking about it so that's good I guess. I'm not nearly as confident in the arguments as it may seem.
I guess I'm not nearly confident as you are that a would-be "genius" will just figure it out. From another comment here "This was the most important part of the Malcolm Gladwell book. That chapter, *Trouble With Geniuses Part 2, compares the lack of success by super genius Chris Langan to Robert Oppenheimer who graduated with honors despite attempted murder of a university faculty.
Anybody who has submitted a proposal to a standards body knows this experience. It does not matter how amazing or ingenious the idea is. The most important thing is to achieve buy in from highly skeptical people. The idea can be garbage, but if there is enough charisma and popularity associated people will eagerly polish the idea for you.
The lone genius might build that amazing thing but it takes more to achieve adoption. Originality irrationally scares the shit out of people."
The messaging we send young thinkers may not have a huge effect, but it could be worth something on the margins.
I guess I'm not nearly confident as you are that a would-be "genius" will just figure it out. From another comment here "This was the most important part of the Malcolm Gladwell book. That chapter, *Trouble With Geniuses Part 2, compares the lack of success by super genius Chris Langan to Robert Oppenheimer who graduated with honors despite attempted murder of a university faculty.
Anybody who has submitted a proposal to a standards body knows this experience. It does not matter how amazing or ingenious the idea is. The most important thing is to achieve buy in from highly skeptical people. The idea can be garbage, but if there is enough charisma and popularity associated people will eagerly polish the idea for you.
The lone genius might build that amazing thing but it takes more to achieve adoption. Originality irrationally scares the shit out of people."
The messaging we send young thinkers may not have a huge effect, but it could be worth something on the margins.
The scientists used here are poor examples for supporting the authors thesis. Someone like Shakespeare is a far better example to find a Lone Genius because he didn't participate in an accumulative field.
Nicola Tesla.
A favorite quote from "Finding Bobby Fischer":
"He's better at this than I've ever been at anything in my life. He's better at this than you'll ever be, at anything."
There are things I'm really good at. I've met and "worked" with people that are the genius, and the savant, the 10X engineer/developer/tactician/athlete. The people I'd love to start a company with but couldn't because I'd be by far the weakest link. I can be a team captain, but I'd sit the bench on a team of their peers. My skill may be in recognizing what I excel at on my best day, is below their effort with a hangover, while playing hurt, while multitasking.
A favorite quote from "Finding Bobby Fischer":
"He's better at this than I've ever been at anything in my life. He's better at this than you'll ever be, at anything."
There are things I'm really good at. I've met and "worked" with people that are the genius, and the savant, the 10X engineer/developer/tactician/athlete. The people I'd love to start a company with but couldn't because I'd be by far the weakest link. I can be a team captain, but I'd sit the bench on a team of their peers. My skill may be in recognizing what I excel at on my best day, is below their effort with a hangover, while playing hurt, while multitasking.
Why not try to put together a team where you are the weakest link? I'd love that. Someone has to deal with all the bullshit that needs to be done but not at a genius level. As long as I'm respected by the team, it could work fine.
[deleted]
This article is attacking a strawman. Newton, Einstein, Ramanujan, etc. were geniuses. It is not controversial to say that. They did not work in complete isolation, and were in regular contact with the scientific community at that time. Acknowledging that even the "lone geniuses" did not work in complete isolation does not detract from their extraordinary contributions. Even lone geniuses have to communicate their ideas to a community of people capable of understanding them, using language and analogies to make their novel ideas understood and adopted. I am sure there are many lone geniuses that we don't know about because they were unable to effectively communicate their ideas to the right audience.
Throughout history there have been many examples of people who want the glow of being a "lone genius" to join the ranks of Einstein and Newton. In order to accomplish this they have downplayed the work of others. It is easier and more compelling for journalists and screenwriters to run with the lone genius story, because it makes the narrative less complicated. I appreciate that we examine a more complete picture of what it takes to accomplish extraordinary goals, whether it's a solitary or team effort.
Throughout history there have been many examples of people who want the glow of being a "lone genius" to join the ranks of Einstein and Newton. In order to accomplish this they have downplayed the work of others. It is easier and more compelling for journalists and screenwriters to run with the lone genius story, because it makes the narrative less complicated. I appreciate that we examine a more complete picture of what it takes to accomplish extraordinary goals, whether it's a solitary or team effort.
I personally liked the series Connections that showed off that many of these guys did not live in a vacuum. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078588
Basically mostly everything is fairly incremental but every once and awhile you get someone who connects 3 or 4 different fields together and something really cool happens. If you work by yourself you will become odd and stale. Bouncing ideas off others helps weed out junk and maybe even help you get a better understanding of what is going on. Or they may ask a question you did not think of and woosh you found something even more cool.
I had an idea a few days ago that most ML seems to be mostly curve fitting (except when it isnt). But what if you could turn that network back into a formula instead of a set of nodes with weights and particular follow rules. Those sets of formulas could yield some interesting ideas, I think, if you could compare them. Like there may be a set of formulas that are just hiding there but are smeared across 1000 nodes. Not even sure where to begin on that. But an interesting idea none the less. One of the smart ones could see the idea and also figure out where to start and tease out the idea until it is done.
Basically mostly everything is fairly incremental but every once and awhile you get someone who connects 3 or 4 different fields together and something really cool happens. If you work by yourself you will become odd and stale. Bouncing ideas off others helps weed out junk and maybe even help you get a better understanding of what is going on. Or they may ask a question you did not think of and woosh you found something even more cool.
I had an idea a few days ago that most ML seems to be mostly curve fitting (except when it isnt). But what if you could turn that network back into a formula instead of a set of nodes with weights and particular follow rules. Those sets of formulas could yield some interesting ideas, I think, if you could compare them. Like there may be a set of formulas that are just hiding there but are smeared across 1000 nodes. Not even sure where to begin on that. But an interesting idea none the less. One of the smart ones could see the idea and also figure out where to start and tease out the idea until it is done.
Einstein was ostracized from academia. He is the quintessential lone genius.
Einstein's 1905 papers were ignored, even by his own teacher Minkowski. Einstein was considered an arrogant academic failure. The "lone genius" was that Einstein knew that he was right and and smarter than his peers and superiors, so he kept working.
Max Planck was the one who identified Einstein's Brownian motion paper as significant. Planck knew that Einstein was onto something and that if Planck continued "quantum"/atom research history would acknowledge Einstein's previous work.
Planck didn't want to needlessly share his glory so he pushed Einstein's relativity work. Planck elevated Einstein's relativity work in an effort to remove Einstein from the quantum.
Einstein betting on himself continued. He promised Mileva his Nobel prize money in 1918 long before it was certain in 1921.
Einstein's 1905 papers were ignored, even by his own teacher Minkowski. Einstein was considered an arrogant academic failure. The "lone genius" was that Einstein knew that he was right and and smarter than his peers and superiors, so he kept working.
Max Planck was the one who identified Einstein's Brownian motion paper as significant. Planck knew that Einstein was onto something and that if Planck continued "quantum"/atom research history would acknowledge Einstein's previous work.
Planck didn't want to needlessly share his glory so he pushed Einstein's relativity work. Planck elevated Einstein's relativity work in an effort to remove Einstein from the quantum.
Einstein betting on himself continued. He promised Mileva his Nobel prize money in 1918 long before it was certain in 1921.
> Einstein was ostracized from academia. He is the quintessential lone genius.
This is all true but most of the "lone genius" narrative paint people in an almost supernatural light.
Einstein work was widely recognized later on. Also, he interacted with plenty of people and read a lot and he never denied that.
This is all true but most of the "lone genius" narrative paint people in an almost supernatural light.
Einstein work was widely recognized later on. Also, he interacted with plenty of people and read a lot and he never denied that.
The model I like to think of this is that intelligence is speed and knowledge is distance, but you start at the peak of a mountain and the farther you go the slope is increasingly getting sharper, so you keep getting faster.
Terrance Tao is a genius. He can go from sub-field in math to sub-field in math and solve a problem that stumped someone dedicated in that sub-field for years. But he is only able to solve those problems because of the understanding that the sub-field expert developed over those years in addition to the broad context that he has developed jumping from sub-field to sub-field.
He started with a lot of speed. As he's worked with more individuals, he's covered significantly more ground that other people, which has compounded to make him unbelievably fast.
One of the main take-aways from this model, is that if we are in an economy that only allows the wealthy Einstein's to flourish, not only are we losing the poor Einstein's we're quite literally slowing Einstein down.
We must do everything we can to ensure that we find smart dedicated people and allow them to thrive.
Terrance Tao is a genius. He can go from sub-field in math to sub-field in math and solve a problem that stumped someone dedicated in that sub-field for years. But he is only able to solve those problems because of the understanding that the sub-field expert developed over those years in addition to the broad context that he has developed jumping from sub-field to sub-field.
He started with a lot of speed. As he's worked with more individuals, he's covered significantly more ground that other people, which has compounded to make him unbelievably fast.
One of the main take-aways from this model, is that if we are in an economy that only allows the wealthy Einstein's to flourish, not only are we losing the poor Einstein's we're quite literally slowing Einstein down.
We must do everything we can to ensure that we find smart dedicated people and allow them to thrive.
We also forget, if Newton were truly a "Lone Genius"... then we would be using Leibniz's calculus.
How many millenia did it take for heliocentric theory to be adopted? Yet we attribute it to Copernicus, as he managed to convince enough people to accept it.
How many millenia did it take for heliocentric theory to be adopted? Yet we attribute it to Copernicus, as he managed to convince enough people to accept it.
Also, there's Leibniz, for Newton :-)
For a fair number of these figures, there's not just the people they communicated with, the prior work they drew on, but often competitors, people they knew were working on the same or similar problems. This is particularly the case with technical inventions.
newsflash: the lone genius exists. it is just that companies do not want you to know. because that way, you will continue to work for shitty compensation packages.
One of the most interesting takeaways for me: "Ideas don't matter is a PsyOp"
like everything, societal contribution is Pareto.
[deleted]
Well this was a bit of shoddy history of science that was aggressively waved in my face by a writer who very eager to get to the sequel, whose title one may suspect will contain the words "I", "genius" and little else...
I mean, one of the things Newton famously wrote was "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." which isn't entirely in the spirt of the long genius myth.
And if Galileo is allowed into the genius pantheon, what to do with the little episode where he convinced the contemporary world that comets were actually just clouds...
I mean, one of the things Newton famously wrote was "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." which isn't entirely in the spirt of the long genius myth.
And if Galileo is allowed into the genius pantheon, what to do with the little episode where he convinced the contemporary world that comets were actually just clouds...
Author here - Very fair that I was being overly contrarian/aggressive but I'm not sure if this invalidates what I think was clearly the point of the article (but maybe not clear). Inspirational stories and cultural narratives matter, especially to young talented thinkers who face challenging circumstances/criticism. Sure this may only matter on the margins, but in a modern science that is increasingly a crapshoot in terms of individual success, we want scientists who have confidence in themselves to think individually. As other commenters pointed out working in a team is not the same as working by yourself, they lead to distinct forms of thinking/working that have their own strengths/weaknesses. Science requires more teamwork than ever, that's necessary and a good thing but that doesn't mean there are costs.
Also why does the fact that Galileo thought some crazy shit mean that he wasn't a genius?
The debate has been going on for nearly two centuries.
Suffice it to say that nobody has had the final word.
At this point I think it's best to simply acknowledge that there's truth to both sides, and that therefore the debate is ultimately artificial -- it's entirely due to the perspective you take on "weighting" the two sides.
It's mainly a useful tool for teaching, where "great man" or "lone genius" is the thesis, "ideas in the air" or "standing on the shoulder of giants" is the antithesis, and the synthesis is... both are necessary to fully explain history/achievements.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory