

Could You Do Genius Quality Work? - lionhearted
http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=274

======
j_baker
"But genius quality work? Large, permanent impact on important fields? I think
we’re in the easiest era of history to do that. There’s so much low hanging
fruit to do – just cross-reference two important disciplines that haven’t
talked to each other enough yet, BAM, genius quality work."

I'm not sure how this logic works. If you have low-hanging fruit, you don't
need genius-quality work. But then again, I'm skeptical of anyone that claims
that genius is easy. Plus, I _do_ believe that there's more to it than hard
work. Anyone can work hard, and I know plenty of hard workers who definitely
don't do genius quality work.

~~~
lionhearted
> I'm not sure how this logic works. If you have low-hanging fruit, you don't
> need genius-quality work.

One of the things that got me thinking about this originally was reading that
there were massive improvements in safety and efficiency in surgery when they
started adopting processes and checklists from engineering.

Whoever adopted, tested, and perfected that made a genius quality contribution
to medicine, but it was (relatively) low hanging fruit. I think it's more
possible to make that sort of high impact, important contribution now than
ever before.

> But then again, I'm skeptical of anyone that claims that genius is easy.

I wrote - "But honestly, I don’t think it’s very hard to do genius-quality
work, _if you decide to try._ Most people don’t try. But if you did try, I
think you could do some."

So I wouldn't say it's easy, but I don't think it's so hard either.

My feeling is that almost anyone could produce some really important works _if
they decided to try_. How many people are trying, really? Everyone I know
that's trying to do really important stuff is generally doing really important
stuff.

> Plus, I do believe that there's more to it than hard work. Anyone can work
> hard, and I know plenty of hard workers who definitely don't do genius
> quality work.

But are they specifically trying to make large, permanent impacts on important
fields? Repeatedly, persistently trying? Putting in hard work in boring, safe
areas is unlikely to produce genius quality work. But looking at really hard
problems or not-yet-done things and trying to do them? I think if you keep
trying, you're likely to produce something of significant value.

Or maybe I'm mistaken, I don't know. But I generally see people who plant a
flag and say, "I will try to do things that are massively important" - those
people I see eventually making breakthroughs and contributions. I think a lot
of people just don't plant that flag.

~~~
j_baker
I say this fully aware of how hokey it sounds, but I'm going to say it anyway.
Being a genius isn't a decision; it's a lifestyle. Maybe you _are_ a genius,
so it seems trivial to you. But the person who connected medicine to
engineering probably did a lot more than say "hey, I wonder what would happen
if I connected this to this". He probably had a good knowledge of both
engineering and medicine. That takes a lot more than making a decision to do
something smart. That's why I don't think that the average person is capable
of doing genius-quality work. It's not that they don't want to change things.
It's just that they don't want to dedicate their lives to it. And that is
definitely understandable.

In end, maybe you and I really agree more than we disagree. It's just that I
feel that there's more to doing genius-quality work than the post presents.

------
iskander
HN reality check: You are a community of people who debug Javascript and
scheme to get acquired by large companies.

------
jcroberts
uggh! The term "permanent" means "timeless," so a "timeless work" is the same
as a work with "permanent impact."

As for me, I can do genus quality work, and occasionally I can even do species
quality work. ;)

~~~
j_baker
Not necessarily. Timeless implies that time has no effect on it - it remains
as important as it was when it was first invented. For instance, I'd say
Euclid's work was timeless. Freud's work is permanent. It had a permanent
impact on the field of psychology, but had to be built upon by other people to
be effective.

------
aspir
Perhaps the key to genius quality work is to aim for the timeless work alluded
to at the end of the piece. It may come down to the fact that if you set the
bar of all your work to be genius/timeless, you won't product average work, or
you won't let yourself release it.

This could lead to paralysis via analysis though. It's probably in the
middle/gray areas that produces consistent "genius" work. Just like everything
else, I guess.

~~~
nickpinkston
Though a lot of geniuses leave massive quantities of both public and private
work that's unremarkable - probably the price for their true contributions. I
would think genius quality work doesn't mean you don't publish, etc. but that
you're persistent in striving to make real contributions.

~~~
aspir
That makes more sense. Sort of a "targeted energy" style of working.

------
dasil003
What about genius quality work that's unrecognized? It seems to me that
focusing on some big important question that is sure to get a lot of attention
is a luxury afforded to people in the right fields of academia. A lot of the
things that drive progress are smaller more mundane issues and battles that
are fought, won and forgotten. Is the quality of the work ascribed by its
notoriety?

------
readtodevelop
One can't make genius quality work, but society can do it.

An army of researchers can visit any single idea in a field, and then one of
then makes a great discovery, one that is the source of a great revolution,
that is a genius is born, so we (society) can make genius quality work.

------
AndrewMoffat
Everyone wants to be a genius. And if they can't be, they want the comfort
that it's because they're not trying hard enough.

I've met some people who were just anomalies, whose brains worked in "genius
mode" naturally, without much of what we would consider "effort." Srinivasa
Ramanujan would fall into this category (not saying I met him :). Pretending I
could think like them is like pretending I could have synesthesia if I really
wanted to.

And yes, this article is about doing genius-quality _work_ and not genius-
quality _thought_ , but give a single monkey a typewriter and let him have at
it...and he'll eventually produce the works of Shakespeare too. Genius lies in
the ability to produce relatively "genius-quality" work in less time and fewer
resources than it would take the average man. The author seems to want to
normalize time and effort across the board for everyone.

