The very last sentence of the last footnote caught my eye:
Oddly enough, the best VCs tend to be the least VC-like.
I suspect that rather than being odd this is nearly tautological for any profession -- "the best X tend to be the least X-like". Professional stereotypes are set by the multitudes in the middle, not the highest-performing outliers.
Further, atypical behavior can be both a cause and effect of excellence. Being 'different' helps them be 'better', but also by being 'better' they gain freedom and confidence to deviate from norms.
(Of course, "the worst X tend to be not very X-like" is also true. But they're more likely to at least try to emulate the average X.)
When you have confidence (in other words, if you are really good and you know it), the incentive to look good goes down. You have a track record. Smart people know who you are.
Your casual remarks impress those that haven't thought things through as much as you have.
You can be yourself, using the same vocabulary and tone of voice you would use at home. On the other hand, people that are insecure or down on the status ladder have a huge incentive to impress others. Some of them will work hard to improve their situation; others will work hard to improve their looks--eventually becoming phony and disbertesque (but only the really good will be able to tell them apart; average people may be blind to it).
The mere tone of voice and choice of words tells it all. If you cannot believe they use these words and tone of voice at home, that's a good sign they're striving for the stereotype.
The other day I was interviewing this guy. He looks straight to me and talks as if we're equals (even though he's climbing that darn status ladder). His tone of voice and choice of words are informal, smoothly flowing. Finally, he brings up a thing or two I haven't thought. That's impressive; a sign that the guy _is really_ good, not posing.
He's on the team now. And poor me, for I have to keep it up to keep him on.
I'm not sure about that. The words "homeless drug addict" don't exactly bring "mathematician" to mind, but thats' exactly what Erdos was, and he certainly qualified as one of the best mathematicians of the 20th century.
EDIT: Oops, it wasn't methamphetamine; it was dl-amphetamine and methylphenidate. Somehow my brain squished those two together.
Erdos was a drug user, not a drug addict. He famously quit drugs for a month just to show that he was not an addict. And though he was technically homeless, he was not what most people imagine when they hear this word. He merely preferred to spend his life traveling, and had many friends everywhere (which comes with the territory if you're eminent).
His most salient characteristics--eccentricity and lack of concern for non-mathematical things--are common to most mathematicians.
Oops, I mentally squished methylphenidate and dl-amphatamine together (Erdos took both) into methamphetamine. You're right, Erdos didn't take methamphetamine.
It's always true in any field where success is relative, and one's success is based on being "better" than others. For example in rowing, if you're on the same training program as everyone else then your chance of winning is basically flip-a-coin. Similarly, if you paint in the same style as others then your chances of being recognized as the best painter are basically flip-a-coin as well. Math, however, is different because you work at uncovering the properties of mathematical objects whatever they might be (so success is absolute), and you don't get credit for doing stuff that's already been done. Because of this everyone can do math the same way and still win, because how much stuff you discover is a function of you and what you're working on and not your methods.
If I had to come up with a general law on the spot, I'd say that the pressure to create new methodology is directly proportional to the similarity of recent winning outcomes in the past. I haven't fully tried to break this yet, but I'm guessing I'm pretty close to having found a natural law since it is consistent with evolution running in S-Curves.
The trouble with math is that the exceptional mathematicians (including theoretical physics/computer science) are the stereotype, and the regular mathematicians are actually quite different from that. So in fact it's the stereotype that's wrong, not the claim that exceptional mathematicians are not very mathematician-like.
Oddly enough, the best VCs tend to be the least VC-like.
I suspect that rather than being odd this is nearly tautological for any profession -- "the best X tend to be the least X-like". Professional stereotypes are set by the multitudes in the middle, not the highest-performing outliers.
Further, atypical behavior can be both a cause and effect of excellence. Being 'different' helps them be 'better', but also by being 'better' they gain freedom and confidence to deviate from norms.
(Of course, "the worst X tend to be not very X-like" is also true. But they're more likely to at least try to emulate the average X.)