

The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life - tokenadult
http://news.yahoo.com/stroke-genius-strikes-later-modern-life-200607752.html

======
jessriedel
The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant,
so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough
approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong.

In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since
the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. _But they have to keep
handing out Nobel prizes._ So the outcome is predictable: you see prizes being
awarded to people who are fleshing out ideas which have been known for a half
century; the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, so you have to work
for years in the nitty-gritty to push the bounds. Hence, the prize winners are
old.

But this doesn't tell us anything about _physicists_ and when they are capable
of genius (and how could it? does anyone really think that human nature has
changed?), it tells us about the stagnation of the field.

The really interesting question is this: is the stagnation of physics more
attributable to (a) some combination of fundamental technological/intellectual
limitations or (b) institutional/social pathologies in Academia. Most people
say '(a)', but I (as a young physicist) worry that '(b)' plays a substantial
role.

~~~
nostrademons
or c.) random chance.

Kuhn would say that science consists of long periods of "normal science", in
which people flesh out basic theories that have been known for decades, and
short periods of "paradigm shifts", where previously ignored evidence is
suddenly incorporated into brand-new, world-shifting theories that completely
upend the old order. Just because you happen to be in one of those long
doldrums of normal science doesn't mean that something is wrong with science,
or that the field has stagnated. It just means you're not in a revolutionary
paradigm-shifting phase.

~~~
jessriedel
We have had more physicists working in the past few decades than in the rest
of human history put together. Statistically, there are dozens of Einsteins
and Feynmans and Newtons walking around. But no breakthroughs. You can't
attribute this to chance.

Again, mere _time_ is a bad metric for baseline progress.

------
6ren
If the cause is indeed that it takes longer to get on top of increasing
complex fields, then it doesn't bode well for the singularity - when
scientists run out of lifespan (e.g. you have to be over 100 to get on top of
the field), no more breakthroughs. Of course, it would be really cool if the
entire field was overturned with a new abstraction that simplifies the
previous epicyclic complexity, and opening up a new surface for young
scientists to pioneer. Will that happen? Or is the complexity we see
irreducible? I prefer the former...

~~~
orangecat
It's another reason why we need to cure aging, just in case the reduced
quality of life and huge medical expenses weren't enough.

~~~
epo
Ageing is nature's way of making way for the young. If we cured ageing there
would be more motivation to suppress new births, and then people like you and
I might never have come along.

------
tansey
Seems more like "Genius strikes later unless there is a revolutionary
breakthrough in your field, in which case it strikes early." Makes sense,
since a breakthrough typically opens the door for other relatively low-hanging
breakthroughs.

~~~
andrewflnr
Right. It seems like it could go back to being the younger kids' game if there
is some major breakthrough.

------
brudgers
What has changed is that the cost of doing business in scientific fields such
as chemistry and physics has become immensely higher. The current paradigm
requires a facility on the scale of CERN to even have a hope of overturning
Einstein's pen and paper side project of relativity via the discovery of
faster than light particles.

In other words, the barrier to entry has been raised in science. Nobody is
going to place a 25 year old Phd in charge of a major chemistry research
laboratory these days.

On the other hand, in software development, the arts, and other creative
fields with low barriers to entry, younger people continue to demonstrate
genius regularly.

------
ciupinet
I think this happens because it is increasingly difficult to accumulate all
the knowledge necessary to make you a specialist in your field (and to give
you the opportunity to discover new things) until the age of 30.

------
samikc
If you need to provide a breakthrough in a scientific field, you need to know
first what has already been done. Even Einstein took some time to understand
metric tensor for his general theory of relativity.

Point is we may not be able to solve the aging problem, however as we progress
we our children will be smarter to grasp complex subjects in shorter time. How
much _short time_? That will depend on the intellect of the child. When I was
in 8th standard my father told me that if I can I should finish all the math
books upto 12th standard in a year. It may not be a full proof knowledge but
it will give me some vision about what the math world looks like. I tried and
succeeded partially (No claims here just what happend in my life). It was
wonderful to know the world of maths. So we need to expose our young minds to
so called _advance topics_ in the subject of their choice. We do not know who
is a genius. Moreover, a genius will eventually find a way to solve a problem
that he/she wants to solve. Why? My guess - because he/she is a genius(also we
do not know how a human brain works now and how it will work in the future).

~~~
mrpsbrk
nevertheless, Einsten didn't pause much for advanced Maths at his "wonder
year", and seem to have given the subject more thought only when older...

------
korny
Note the abstract for the actual paper is at
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/03/1102895108.abst...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/03/1102895108.abstract?sid=12e1b761-43a6-4972-9bfa-4febc4558a26)
And some graphs from the paper are at [http://www.blognome.be/2011/11/08/age-
dynamics-in-scientific...](http://www.blognome.be/2011/11/08/age-dynamics-in-
scientific-creativity/)

------
sireat
What the article hints at is the reason for this shift:

You need to accumulate more knowledge and do more work before the
breakthrough. Meaning you have to start very early on your highly specialized
journey.

Are there any recent (past 50 years or so) examples of someone doing great
work in some field, but who started late (say age 25 or 30)?

~~~
zerostar07
Hodgkin and Huxleys seminal work in neuroscience was done in their late 30s:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodgkin%E2%80%93Huxley_model>

Feynman formulated the path integral at age 30

------
josscrowcroft
You might want to consider tattooing this somewhere:

 _"It may be that young scientists did better, in part, because they never
learned the older ways of thinking and could think in new ways."_

Replace 'scientists' with e.g. 'musicians', 'designers', 'developers', or your
profession of choice.

------
jamesrcole
Quibble: their title reflects the widespread belief that breakthroughs are
sudden eureka moments. I think that belief is damaging.

------
simon_weber
It surprised me that increased life expectancy wasn't mentioned. We live
nearly twice as long as we did back in 1850.

------
sabat
As a 48-year-old (!), I can't tell you how hopeful this article made me feel.

~~~
kalid
You know, I realize a lot of life falls into the "shopping cart" effect. If
there's 5 lines at the grocery store, there's an 80% chance you'll see another
line moving faster than yours (there's only a 20% chance you picked the
fastest line).

I've recently turned 30 but realize there is no race to make it. Not for me
anyway. Maybe I'm turning Zen about it but who really cares when you
"succeed"? "The people that mind don't matter, and the people that matter
don't mind."

By the way, Colonel Sanders (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders>)
began franchising KFC at age...65

~~~
6ren
Adobe was founded by a 42 and 43 year old, if it makes you feel any better.
And if anything, we seem to be aging more slowly than way back then (1982).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Geschke>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock>

