"People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.
Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.
I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right."
I was in calculus and physics classes many years ago with a future physics Nobel laureate, and I was better in both than he was :-). Of course, he kept at it and I dropped out.
What do you mean by being better? Having better grades than him or being a better problem solver. Because most of the time, these kind of people follow their own agenda and don't really bother to be at the top of the class.
Last night I saw Myth Busters and Jamie beat an olympic swimmer in swimming through syrup :-P it just bottles* the mind; how can you beat an olympic swimmer in swimming, regardless of medium?
Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did.
To quote one of my professors: "scientific greatness requires three things: some intelligence, hard work and some luck".
If Einstein hadn't invented the theory of relativity, someone else would have. The relevant equations had already been around for years, waiting for a proper physical interpretation: the time was ripe for it.
There probably were a number of authors as prolific and proficient as Shakespeare, that have nevertheless vanished in obscurity, because Shakespeare just happened to get and keep the attention.
From not being succesful you can never conclude you have not been working hard enough: someone else may have gotten lucky.
What bothers me the most when I read this kind of stuff, is that there is no clear reason why the success of Feynman & co. should be attributed to some innate talent rather than to hard work, and yet most people firmly believe in the former explanation. A very plausible reason for the 'genius' of all these physicists is that when faced with challenging problems, they didn't despair like most people, and instead tried experimenting with various approaches, or temporarily switched to different problems. In fact, in many interviews, Feynman himself claimed that 'intelligence' had nothing to do with his success.
It's also interesting to observe how different the comments are on Cosmic Variance and on Hacker News. Maybe the fact that so many physicists share the views expressed in that post has something to do with there being so few Feynmans, Hawkings and Einsteins.
I don't think that many of the people who appreciate Feynman, Einstein or Hawking think they are as smart. If they did, why would they idolize someone who is on the same level as them.
Having people to look up to in your field is inspiring. It forces you to work harder and aspire to be greater in your field.
What if you worked in a field that had no one? Who does an accountant look up to? What inspires them to get up every morning and go to work? Money? That just isn't enough for some people, which is why you have such 'cults' (such as the supposed Paul Graham cult!).
I think you missed the point. A grad student who idolizes Feynman, Einstein or Hawking does not think he's as smart as them (not even close). Instead, he hopes he can make contributions at the same level of Feynman, Einstein or Hawking. Maybe if he works really hard and is lucky, then maybe he can make one important contribution.
People who think they are smart and have no track record of achievements are just self-deluded, egomaniac, sick fools.
Again, what is wrong with that? I would take someone who is motivated, willing to work hard and is innovative over someone is simply comfortable with the likelihood that they will never contribute anything that will change the world.
We're talking Physics here. Let's not forget that.
A hard-working, motivated person does not need to be Einstein-smart to change the world. There are many ways of changing the world, but coming up with a new theory that dethrones the old established theory is probably the hardest and riskiest way of all.
If I wanted to recruit someone, I would want someone who is motivated and willing to work hard, over someone who is bitter for not being Feynman-smart that is for sure.
The point I am trying to make is that people should set small, realistic goals and accomplish them. Instead of one big goal, divide it into small ones and conquer them one by one. Do not engage in ego-masturbation until you've accomplished something truly Earth-shattering. Just keep working to accomplish more.
One way I tend to look at it now is to put myself in perspective. I generally go under the assumption I am pretty smart - whether it is true or not - and that can often be a bad thing. It's often good to sit and consider the effect such awesome minds (and I think it is hard to argue their contributions aren't above and beyond what most "very clever" people will achieve) had on the world just to put my own achievements in perspective.
The crucial thing of course is to understand that it is still possible to achieve great things without reaching those heady heights :) (for example Von Braun is little remembered in pop-physics but his [and his team's] achievements changed the world substantially)
Let's imagine that God's Book contains not only proofs but also the other good Ideas of the Universe (QED, Enlightenment, Mozart's Requiem, etc..) For one of these Ideas to become known to us, a human's brain must at some point "think" it - by entering some physical/biological state (firing pattern?) which encodes that idea.
Then the human search for these Ideas is really a search over an enormous state space of all possible brain states. Some factors that can affect one's odds of being first to exhibit an Idea:
- Wiring: some brains are born prone to Idea states. Through plasticity, brains can increase their propensity to represent Idea states. Also, some brains are wired to acquire new states and evaluate them more quickly.
- Hard work: entering & evaluating more states than other people, usually in a small area, through disciplined investigation.
- Inputs: the right knowledge at the right moment (Ideas are similar to each other - cf. beauty as a correctness heuristic)
- Blind luck
Some apparent characteristics of Idea states:
- It is hard work to represent an Idea state (presumably, the easy ones are those we are born to, and appear trivial to us)
- Idea states appear to occur in clusters (cf. beauty as a truth heuristic in physical theories)
- It is difficult to define a distance metric between Idea states
- Corollary: it is difficult to tell how far away any given state is from the nearest Idea state
As far as I can tell, the author of this article is arguing that it is unreasonable to stop searching simply because one's brain is not as Idea-compatible as F-E-H's appear to be. This seems to be sensible advice - but one must appreciate that it does diminish the odds.
"People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.
Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.
I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right."
http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html