I'll go out on a limb (especially since this is HN! run by YC!!): entrepreneurship is killing genius. In my lifetime I've witnessed the slow slide from blue sky research being rampant in corporate America around the time I was born (early '80s), to being found only in academia ('90s), to even academia being expected to turn a profit ('00s). My university even has a vice-Provost in charge of turning research into new businesses.
Not every good idea can make a profit. When you demand that all ideas do, you'll be missing out...
I upmodded you because I think your post is worthwhile but I think you're conflating entreprenurship with short-sighted greed.
Entrepreneurship and genius are just different aspects of the same thing: solving problems in new ways, more often than not by challenging the percieved rules of the game.
I realized only later that my statement needed an extra qualification: entrepreneurship is killing (non-entrepreneurship related) genius
Certainly Ron Popeil is some kind of genius...George Foreman too. But I'd challenge anyone to hand me a business model that could be formed around General Relativity! If we had demanded a business plan from Einstein before we let him continue working on his ideas, he'd probably have died a patent clerk.
Genius created the apple computer. Entrepreneurship brought it to the rest of us. There's probably about the same amount of genius as ever, there's just a lot more people hawking it these days.
Depends on how you're defining it, but attributing products to "genius" sounds awfully like a creationist fallacy. It's interesting that you should cite Apple; Woz's work on the Apple I and their current design process both seem exceptionally darwinian.
Woz just proves my point, though. He didn't worry about making money off the Apple I. That was all Jobs. Certainly, there are different kinds of genius. Jobs is a marketing genius. Woz is an engineering genius.
Tell me: How many post Apple I/II inventions of Woz are you familiar with? He certainly hasn't stopped inventing. He just doesn't worry about selling inventions any longer...
I'm going to have to disagree with that. It took surprising insight for the Woz to look at the same parts catalogs as everyone else and then (without even having the parts at first) do such extraordinary things with them. Many people had access to the parts, more experience, and the technical ability to do this earlier, they just didn't.
The iterative improvement that Apple uses to design and perfect products is somewhat darwinian but it lacks the random mutation and recombinative aspects that define evolution. I'd have to say (since the water has already been clouded by this new little corollary of Godwin's law) that it more nearly approximates intelligent design.
Not just Woz. Jobs did it too. Back then, and still today. If you think that the people who conceptualized and designed the iPod and iPhone aren't artists through-and-through, you've got another thing coming. The team works together, yeah, but you don't design beautiful things by committee.
Incidentally (to the OP), you always make multiple designs before you pick one. That's not loss of artistic process. I've got three drafts of a single chapter of the book I'm working on now. I've got something like 5 different possible melodies to fit a song I've been Garagebanding. That doesn't take away from the power of the individual when it comes to designing a product. (Considering how in-depth people have looked at Jony Ive's design process and inspiration, I find it sad that people still think Apple products are made through a generic idea-forming process, that the people barely matter in the creation process.
(Also, this author is not a particularly good one, and the fact that she's citing Tom Waits is not a good sign. Waits is a legendary practical jokester and story spinster, and all reports of his songwriting I've read say that he undergoes a very strict process when constructing his songs.)
Agreed. I wonder if there's a correlation between the rise of "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" and the shift from Sonatra to Britney Spears. If the geniuses are entrepreneurs, who's left for the arts?
And the line between graduate school and consulting is getting way too thin. One of my GRAs required that I spend time on-site with the customer -- sorry, "corporate partner on the research grant."
Don't be too fooled by marketing. Just because pure research doesn't come with all the glitter and flash of applied research doesn't mean it's not there. Remember: Every Macbook sold is an advertisement for the transistor, but there's no product that advertises Andrew Wiles, apart from a few math books. But that doesn't mean the genius isn't out there. He may be sitting at the table right next to you!
The secret to doing pure research in the modern era is to hype up the applied aspects for grant-hunting purposes. Developmental biologists and geneticists don't do "pure research": They do "cancer research" or "stem cell research aimed at curing Alzheimers". Even when someone who hasn't read certain paragraphs of the grant proposal would have a lot of trouble telling the difference. ("Are you sure you're not just having fun trying to make the fruit fly grow new eyes in embarrassing places?" "No, I'm studying the regulation of this very important oncogene, implicated in 36% of human cancers, that also happens to make fruit files see out of their feet." The beauty of it is: None of this is untrue. [1])
And a lot of that vice-Provost stuff is for show. Most professors couldn't actually make money in the market if it fell on their head. They're filing patents, collecting letters of collaboration from captains of industry, and talking big about "entrepreneurship" because it's cheap talk that impresses funding agencies. (A lot of funding applications have a section for listing such things.)
Finally, it's important to remember why there used to be a lot of industry money for "pure" research [2]: Monopolies. The public paid for that research via what amounted to a set of not-particularly-progressive sales taxes on phones (Bell Labs), photocopiers (Xerox PARC), and computer equipment (IBM labs). I don't have a study or anything, but it seems to me that soon after each of these big companies started seeing significant market competition, their pure research started to dry up, despite its world-class quality. It may be that pure research can't survive in a competitive market: The only way to sustain it is via tax-supported public funding. Hopefully with more intelligently-designed taxes than, say, a tax on all our phones.
---
[1] Except that I made this oncogene up. ;) What I'm trying to say is: It's true that understanding cancer requires us to understand apparently unconnected facts about eye development in fruit flies. There's little about growth and development that doesn't have implications for cancer.
[2] It's also possible to argue that the industrially-funded "pure" research of old wasn't particularly pure. It was all intended to be applied or sold... just on a time scale more suited for a monopoly than a startup. Of course, it turned out that, even given a long-enough time, such a plan often doesn't work: For example, Xerox turned out to be well equipped to prototype the Alto, but was very ill equipped to manufacture and market it. It took a much younger and less mature company to do that.
On the topic of blue-sky research, I couldn't agree with you more. Both your assessment of the the how and the why is spot on. I think it's a shame, though, that the public was very gung-ho about doing away with the "tax" on telephones and computers, etc., but never considered the ramifications of reducing the ability of AT&T, IBM, etc., to do that basic research.
I also think it's worth noting that the longer the time-scale over which the research will become profitable, the greater the number unforeseen applications. A good example of this was Shannon's work at Bell Labs. Not only did it justify the eventual move toward digital transmission, but it also made possible a wide swath of genetics research. Now who could have foreseen that? and how much did those geneticists actually pay for the research?
As for the ability of researchers to game the system, and your assertion that the University entrepreneurship push is all for show, I'm less sure than you that "everything will be okay". I recently, as a graduate student, approached the office of sponsored research (OSR) for assistance in applying for NIH funding. The people in OSR didn't have a director and didn't know who was overseeing my department. When I finally did locate the correct person there, he was rather helpful, but I posed the question to him: There are many opportunities for both students and professors, but I had to find this one on my own. Why doesn't OSR promote more federal funding?
His response was that the school is actively pursuing funding through patent licensing and commercial partnerships, so the OSR has received less attention and has fewer resources at its disposal.
In other words, I don't doubt the ability of researchers to sell their basic science programs to federal funding agencies and the public as having practical applications, but I do worry about them loosing institutional support as institutions look more and more toward industry partnerships. After all, a congressperson might be fooled into believing that E. coli genetics research can help cure heart disease (a spin that I personally put on an application for AHA funding ;-), but Merck or Pfizer will be much less enthusiastic about the same spin if they don't have a lead molecule in 3-4 years time.
Whew, that makes me feel better. I really like thinking about things, but I also really dislike the pressure that comes from thinking my ideas are only valid if there is a clear way to turn them into something practical.
I dunno. I think it's wrong to view genius as being an inherent quality of a person. I think it's equally wrong to view it as an external force that just happens to visit people at certain times.
In my experience, genius is the result of turning over a problem in your head over and over, learning all the angles, and then relaxing and forgetting about it for a while. While you're forgetting about it, your brain can make subconscious connections between everything you've learned that seem to come from nowhere. But you have to have the background knowledge.
I find that I have tons of creative ideas when I'm just starting out a project. They almost all turn out to be bad ones. Then once I explore a bit, learn everything there is to know about the area, I'll occasionally get a decent idea. If I don't think too hard about it.
From the amazon reviews of her book: "I could not finish this book. When the author burst into sobs yet again in the middle of prayer, or a conversation, or walking down the street, or (more likely) on the floor of yet another bathroom, I gave up. This is the type of person you meet at a cocktail party and RUN in the other direction after a few minutes when she starts spewing out all her problems at you with no end in sight."
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote the best treatise on writing (and by extension, creative expression) I think I've ever read. Here are some excerpts - I believe its worthwile reading the entire essay many times:
"I often hear people say, “I’m not good enough yet to be published.” That’s quite possible. Probable, even. All I’m saying is: Let someone else decide that. Magazines, editors, agents – they all employ young people making $22,000 a year whose job it is to read through piles of manuscripts and send you back letters telling you that you aren’t good enough yet: LET THEM DO IT. Don’t pre-reject yourself. That’s their job, not yours. Your job is only to write your heart out, and let destiny take care of the rest."
"There are heaps of books out there on How To Get Published. Often people find the information in these books contradictory. My feeling is -- of COURSE the information is contradictory. Because, frankly, nobody knows anything. Nobody can tell you how to succeed at writing (even if they write a book called “How To Succeed At Writing”) because there is no WAY; there are, instead, many ways. Everyone I know who managed to become a writer did it differently – sometimes radically differently. "
I really wanted to dislike that essay - I was annoyed at how she treated writing like a sacred task - but it was good and definitely worth the few minutes it took to read. Thanks for the link!
That book features something I don't think I've ever seen on amazon: All three top (front page) reviews are one-starred. Not that amazon reviewers are perfect, but that's pretty rare for a book by a "genius".
I've seen that before twice: in both cases, it meant that it steps on someone's or some group's ego or politics, and then there's no small brigade of internet trolls sent out to deliver Amazon justice.
I gave a one-star review to Sarah Lacy's book on Web 2.0. It wasn't politics as much as truly shoddy journalism. She attributed thoughts and opinions to me without actually asking what I thought on the subject (she was basically fed info from digg PR). My negative review probably looked like a PR thing, when in fact it was a personal reaction to plain old shoddy work.
Maybe the book is too long for the point she tries to make. I think we are starting to need a shorter format for this kind of books; some of these ideas can be really useful, but they couldn't ever fill an entire book (another example: Gladwell's books, which can have an interesting point -even if it's a conjecture-, but they are too long for the ideas they try to tell).
This article reminded me of the story of Robert Oppenheimer. In that case, at least, I think the story of how we destroy our heroes rings true.
If any of you enjoy biographies, stories of scientific and engineering heroism, and haven't read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," please do. It is an extraordinary story.
Oppenheimer himself at his 1954 security clearance hearings denied being a member of the Communist Party, but identified himself as a fellow traveler, which he defined as someone who agrees with many of the goals of Communism, but without being willing to blindly follow orders from any Communist party apparatus.
Frankly, I don't know. It seems the most creative people are
also self-confident. They're both arrogant and humble. Plus, we should rate someone's achievement by his best output, not
his thousands failures.
Interesting starting point to a real problem with "genius," but not a great strategy. If she's arguing that internalizing blame for not being constantly brilliant or being able to maximize your brilliance puts undue stress on amazing people, then maybe learning to live with that fact rather externalizing the blame to something imaginary would be a better idea. That way, you will at least be comfortable enough with your own mind to maybe begin exploring real ways to improve your genius productivity (see also: http://nomediakings.org/time_management_for_anarchists/free_...).
Much of achievement is circumstantial: a product takes off because people need it (which is something outside the product). You notice a connection between two things, because you knew about them both and happened to be thinking about them. You can't arrange to discover things that are unknown - by definition. All you can do is be out there looking, doing things, trying things. Inspiration strikes he who is at the typewriter
Why must hackers be so literal with everything? Just talking about inspiration as coming from an external entity doesn't imply superstition, it doesn't mean somebody has strong faith-based beliefs about the exact nature of spirits and little green people.
If you're willing to loosen your grip on the necessity for all ideas to be fact-based, and let some of the fuzzy in, the idea of a muse can serve as a useful perspective on the creative process. It's a hell of lot more useful than sticking electrodes on people and trying to quantify creativity with statistical analysis.
Mysticism with no empirical component is dangerous - but if you read that as a practical suggestion it will work a lot better. I.e.: do the work, don't wait for flashes of inspiration, and don't think that if you don't have any such flashes, that you're a stupid failure, or that all you have to do is have a great idea.
Precisely. Any artist that thinks his mind isn't responsible for the beautiful things they create is doing himself a disservice. Perhaps you will never fully understand your mind, but that's a testament to the power of your mind, not a sign that a divine being is necessary.
Frank Zappa had an excellent quote about this. When discussing spiritualism in music with a fellow musician, he said: "Look, these are just instruments. Find out what the range is, and start writing." And that's what it is. Writing music is difficult, and requires a degree of brilliance to come out with even a comparatively mediocre song, but there's no magic to it. It takes work and thought. It doesn't take superstition.
Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation?
Even if we start with your premise, that it's only the person's brain, the brain itself is an amalgamate of many, many other things, very few we have direct responsibility for. So, even then, it doesn't make sense to take full responsibility for any genius we may possess.
No, you don't live in a vacuum. Newton was indeed standing on the shoulders of giants. But to go from there to saying you don't deserve responsibility for what you've done is a grossly illogical step to take.
You could argue that Zappa did everything because of circumstance. You could make a good and utterly meaningless case because of that, that everything is responsible for everything. It's good because it's generic enough to be obvious; it's meaningless because if everything causes everything it's the same as nothing causing anything.
In Zappa's case particularly: I know of no other musician that learned music through modernist composers and then translated that into rock music, who started off playing drums in a small band, took control of that band, taught himself guitar and became a virtuoso, and produced 90 albums in about 30 years in every genre imaginable. Nobody even comes close in that regard, and nobody has ever done anything like it. So, who's responsible for that genius? The record stores, for selling albums that caught Zappa's eye? Zappa's parents, for letting him buy records? The band members who ducked out and let Zappa take control? Those aren't genius acts. The genius is the thing that Zappa provided that came from him and him alone.
Most historical genii I know of attribute their greatest work to something outside of them. Is there a good counter to this observation?
Shakespeare didn't. Joyce didn't. Beckett didn't. The author of my favorite novel, Daniel Handler, is quoted as saying something to the effect that the only sacred thing about his writings is that he took the time to revise them. Bach wrote for the church but I've never read something saying that he was merely writing for God. The attitude stated here, that genius comes from an outside force, is incredibly rare. I've never heard anybody who's made anything truly extraordinary crediting anybody but themselves. The act of creation requires ego above anything else.
First of all, where do I say people do not deserve responsibility for genius? They just do not deserve sole responsibility. I do not think genius is without effort. Genius requires supreme effort.
But, do you think there's a difference between the deep insights we call genius and someone who achieves a lot? I do. The people who are most celebrated for such insights vs. only being prolific seem to have a common claim to a transcendent source of insight. Off the top of my head: Homer, Plato, Dante, Einstein. Plus, Bach dedicated his work to God, not the church.
Like the speaker says, people saying that they are the genius is very recent. Having read a fair amount of the Western corpus, I'd agree. Makes sense too from an etymological standpoint, since genius means some kind of spirit, like genie. Plus, the individualist attitude seems to coincide with a derth in good art, so it looks like modern artists are missing something. It also leads to the really lame idea that good art means being totally original, which actually results in no one being original and mostly just incoherent instead. Finally, for what it's worth, my own experience validates this idea. Any ideas that seem truly good to me seem to be something outside of myself that I've grasped. Haven't you had this same experience?
"Insight versus prolific" is a tough thing to debate. Zappa fans believe that the Beatles offered nothing to music. Some people think Sex Pistols are nothing but noise.
We don't know much about Homer, Plato's concept of "the gods" was one that said humans had their own free will and were not tools of the gods (brush up on Greek mythology, particularly Prometheus), Einstein gets called religious but wasn't actually. Dante you may be right about: I haven't studied him enough to know.
People claiming brilliance goes back as far as Shakespeare, who was known for being hotheaded and arrogant with his writing. It certainly goes back further, though I couldn't name specific names earlier than Shakespeare, who's pretty much the perfect null hypothesis. If Shakespeare thought he was good in and of himself, that means possibly the greatest artist of all time rejects this theory of divine inspiration.
Art isn't about originality. It's about personality. Art is partly about technical expertise, partly about artist ego. You only know yourself: the process to genius in art is the process of discovering your own standards.
For what it's worth, I've never had that experience. I know exactly what caused me to have the ideas that I do. I analyze my ideas until I understand what drives me to create them. As a result, I'm extraordinarily egotistical. It's why I thought it was worth denying the statements from the original post.
First, to clarify. By inspiration, I do not mean that someone hears a voice telling them what to do. Instead, I mean the person has a vision of something higher, outside of themselves, that they try to replicate in their art. Maybe you already think this, and we're just talking past each other.
Homer starts off the Iliad with an invocation of the muse. Read Plato's dialogue Ion, where Socrates says exactly what I'm saying. Plus, you will find the same idea in Phaedrus, Republic, and the Symposium. I'm not saying Einstein is religious. He's obviously not a theist. But, he did think his ideas were not merely constructs out of his own mind but following some higher sense of beauty.
Okay, yep! We secretly agree. I thought you were saying that all genius comes from non-humankind. I agree that there's an objectivity to taste and that we all approach it.
I'd differ, though, in saying that we are our own standard. The greatest art is that which most reflects its creator.
People use anything and everything to take advantage of other people. That was my point.
If I came on here and started saying how we need to get rid of computer networks because they just provide more mechanisms of control, I would be downvoted to oblivion.
Painting mysticism as bad because of how some people us it against the gullible is pretty poor reason to be "appalled" by it, but it's one that happens to appeal to the biases of the hacker mind. But if you want to do more than pay lip service to objectivity you ought to think it over a little more carefully.
As should you. Computer networks are not used primarily for controlling other people. Mysticism, and more generally all forms of religion, have the primary purpose of controlling people, of enforcing approved behavioral patterns among the general populace.
Ignorance of such a very basic thing as what is and what isn't real is an appalling state to purposely manipulate people into and is more than enough to damn all such practices.
But they were not created for this purpose (except Scientology). It's a fair jab at organized religion, but when you lump all mysticism together like that you're tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
I disagree, they were created for exactly this purpose. Religion was our first real form of government, its very purpose is to control people by controlling what they think and how they behave.
Ignorance is ignorance, organized or not, and just as easily used to manipulate people. Mysticism is appalling because because it embraces ignorance and irrational magical thinking. You may find this OK, but I assert that it's bad, and worse, dangerous.
The only muse necessary is sitting your ass down and actually beginning the process of creation.
The muse is some mystical bullshit that we feed one another to make things look like magic. No one wants to hear the dirty details of creating something because, for some reason, it ruins the image of the final result.
I think what the article is saying is that it might be better for your creativity to believe (or act as if you believed) that your creativity doesn't really come from you (regardless of whether or not it does or not).
Not every good idea can make a profit. When you demand that all ideas do, you'll be missing out...