

Old Masters and Young Geniuses - hhm
http://www.kottke.org/08/08/old-masters-and-young-geniuses

======
prospero
The transcript of Malcolm Gladwell's talk
(<http://www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf>) is a lot more
interesting than the blog entry that's discussing it. It's not so much about
age (i.e. you must be either 20 or 60 to make something great), but that there
are two fundamentally different approaches to creation.

The first is immediate and _ex nihilo_ , the execution of a clearly defined
idea that is fundamental to the artist's way of thinking. The second is slow
and incremental, a blind walk through an enormous search space, until the
artist finds something that resonates with them for reasons they can't
properly explain.

I could probably make some sort of startup vs. 37Signals analogy here, but my
heart's not in it, so I'll leave it to someone else.

~~~
huherto
Good! If you cannot be a genius at 20 you still have 40 years to become a
master.

~~~
prospero
No, my point was that age is a red herring. The only binary distinction being
posited here is that some people know what they're looking for, and other
people find it.

------
aaronsw
Tufte debunked this book in _Beautiful Evidence_. It even led him to coin the
term economisting (emphasis on _con_ and _mist_ ).

Draft: [http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=0...](http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=0001Zl)

When I first read it I remarked that he was going after too easy a target --
surely nobody would take this stuff seriously. And yet, since then, all sorts
of people have.

~~~
zasz
Thanks for the link. Reading it, I couldn't believe that I and the others
commenting here swallowed this book's thesis so easily and uncritically.

~~~
DaniFong
I suspect the absence of quantities in the book is more a product of the book
publishing process than of any intent to deceive. Recall that Stephen Hawking
was told that 'every equation will drop sales by half.' But a lack of
presented evidence doesn't imply that the thesis is wrong.

Once you look, you find that the theory corresponds much more nicely to
reality than the theory of genius commonly held: namely, that early success is
a good predictor of later, great works. From what I know of history, in
mathematics, art, architecture, music, physics, leadership, hacking, dance,
there truly are distinct examples of prodigies and late bloomers. And it's
enlightening to hear how he describes the difference in creative approach. For
example, when I was a kid, the _production_ of my work was only a hindrance. I
had a concept or idea or visualization that I wanted to communicate, and I
would tell people, literally, that I wish only that I had 'a projector in my
head'.

But many people, who's work I've come to respect deeply, rely instead on the
resistance of their medium, the feedback of an audience, the taste of what
they create, rely upon pursuing little accidents they stumble upon along the
way as clues to help them find the form they seek. And I can tell just how
different it is from a conceptual approach, and how patient and observant and
diligent one must be to achieve its mastery.

~~~
zasz
I do agree a lack of evidence does not make a thesis wrong. Everyone thought
the discoverer of plate tectonics was wrong because he was unable to provide a
precise mechanism for how the continents might move, despite an impressive
array of fossil, biological, and other evidence. I don't think this theory of
old masters and prodigies is completely debunked, but I thought Aaron's
article brought up an excellent point about how the valuations were being made
that I'd simply swallowed too easily. Aaron's submission was also the first
thing I'd seen of anyone being critical at all, which was slightly startling
in retrospect. I try to make a policy of not believing everything I hear and I
failed this time.

I suppose I was a little condescending though. I'm sorry.

------
henning
I hope no software/web design people see analogies to creative web work and
think that if they didn't get hired by Google at age 15 or they haven't been
doing this stuff since 1994 that they have no chance of doing quality work.

In my experience the single greatest determinant of the quality of my work is
the level of involvement/effort/passion I invest in it. I definitely subscribe
to the 1% inspiration 99% perspiration school.

~~~
DarkShikari
I find that its mostly inspiration--but that inspiration itself comes from
perspiration. I've come up with simple but elegant ideas that turn out to be
quite effective when applied, and the adaptation of idea to practice turns out
to be relatively trivial. But in reality, I came up with that idea through a
great deal of conscious and subconscious thought as a result of experimenting
with hundreds of other ideas that failed. The "spark of inspiration" rarely is
something that happens in a second, even if it seems that way initially.

------
13ren
I think the "young genius" is a function of their times: the area was ripe for
a revolution, and it just needed someone to say it. Like some discoveries.

It's easier to see it (and go with it) for a less experienced person, who is
less invested in the status quo and less risk averse. At other times, the same
young person's risks would achieve little.

OTOH, anyone who is actually there, who actually does it, who is an instrument
of a revolution, should be celebrated as if they created it from nothing.
Because if we don't encourage it, we'll have less of it. And any person, no
matter what their achievement, can be dismissed as a mere agent of the
environment - an inhuman and nihilistic view.

~~~
lliiffee
I think you are on to something. For example, many people see research in the
sciences as the progress of a few unbelievable geniuses, with 99% of people
contributing nothing and wasting their time. So, for example, progress in
Physics is just waiting for the next Einstein to show up to make the next
insanely brilliant advance.

However, I think that is wrong. Einstein was obviously a huge genius, but with
an IQ of 160, I calculate there are currently about 9 million (=3 billion *
.003) people walking the earth with higher ones. The stars have to be properly
aligned so that it is _possible_ to make such an advance. It is no coincidence
that Einstein's discoveries were made so soon after other physicists make the
contributions necessary for them. If he hadn't done it, it would have been
somebody else.

------
aantix
You can listen to this same presentation here :
[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306onco_cover...](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306onco_covers_gallery)

If I recall correctly, Gladwell starts off the night by telling the stories of
Fleetwood Mac vs The Eagles. Fleetwood Mac created 13 (?) albums before they
got a hit. The Eagles first album was a smash.

------
Prrometheus
>The book was recommended to me by Malcolm Gladwell -- which means that many
of you can now form your opinion of it without even reading it

I'm going to guess it's a book with interesting ideas that is driven primarily
by theory and anecdote.

------
alaskamiller
I remember reading this Wired profile of David Galenson from 2006
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html>

The book sounds interesting.

