tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post4291628090091053585..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Is the decline of the genius due to cheaper information transmission?agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-62840363841261628222009-10-28T17:45:43.908-04:002009-10-28T17:45:43.908-04:00The only thing I'll add is that, within intell...The only thing I'll add is that, within intellectual disciplines, the way they do research is fairly well set in stone. Historians obsess over the details, English critics focus on their theories, etc. You can argue that the way they do things is perfect for their discipline, but ultimately it's very stilted and ossified, which leaves less room for dynamic, creative genius to reign.<br /><br />Genius is most fecund during massive intellectual shifts, when the preexisting paradigms are cast aside. That way the creative elite will have enough room to think of new ideas that they can impose on the future generations, until their ideas have been fully explored and must be cast aside for new ones.Sidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-16929893823868267652009-10-21T18:31:03.422-04:002009-10-21T18:31:03.422-04:00I'm not totally against the low hanging fruit ...<i>I'm not totally against the low hanging fruit hypothesis either. For example, in physics there doesn't seem much place for it to go right now. It's all empty theorizing. But that may just be due to the fact that we have more or less reached the limits of what we can do for experiments.</i><br /><br /><br />Apparently, Dirac had a theory that science has Golden Ages in which "ordinary people can make extraordinary contributions.” It certainly isn't a golden age for physics now.joeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01464879605459148970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-35277036930167861352009-10-21T12:43:25.358-04:002009-10-21T12:43:25.358-04:00The trouble is that when a bunch of ideas are boun...<i>The trouble is that when a bunch of ideas are bouncing around in a single person's brain, compared to the loss-y process of bouncing your ideas off of someone else, you can see the larger pattern more easily.</i><br /><br />Yes, the arts are doing much worse than the sciences and this is doubtless why.<br /><br />Most of the best art is coming from film, which is still reliant on a popular audience. Most of the other high arts are still dominated by a clique, like the way poetry and lit fic are at the mercy of creative writing programs.<br /><br />I'm not totally against the low hanging fruit hypothesis either. For example, in physics there doesn't seem much place for it to go right now. It's all empty theorizing. But that may just be due to the fact that we have more or less reached the limits of what we can do for experiments.<br /><br />I'm not sure the low hanging fruit hypothesis works much for the arts though. There has been a decline in productivity, and no you can't rewrite Paradise Lost or Hamlet, but Marcel Proust rivals Shakespeare as a writer and he died only in the 1920s.Thursdayhttp://manwhoisthursday.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-55936239610558668072009-10-21T01:37:32.125-04:002009-10-21T01:37:32.125-04:00Yes, firms do a very good job at reducing transact...Yes, firms do a very good job at reducing transaction costs. Research teams are also good at splitting up research work when carrying out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science" rel="nofollow"> normal science</a>, but seem unable to carry out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift" rel="nofollow"><br />paradigm shifts</a>. Normal science can be very predictable: I need you to run these assays, perform these reactions, survey those people, or clean that data. <br />Paradigm shifts, changes in the basic assumptions and rules of scientists, can only be carried out individuals. They go against the mainstream thought of their time. Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Einstein, and von Neumann created paradigm shifts. Paradigm shifts can only be created by individuals because they require all the ideas bouncing around in one head.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/content/edward-carr/last-days-polymath" rel="nofollow"> The polymaths of old</a> – Michelangelo, Ben Franklin, Thomas Young, Alexander <br />von Humboldt, Leibniz, knew everything about everything, and could also make significant contributions to many fields. The scope of human knowledge was not <br />so big. A couple months of reading and seeking the best scholars was enough to master all the concepts of any field. After the 1800s, the scope of knowledge in most fields became too broad. It was possible to master all the concepts in <br />many fields, but difficult to contribute to all of them. At this point, “know something about everything” and “know everything about something” began to diverge.<br /><br />In fields that require mastery of large bodies of work, like cell bio, contributions are generally made by older people. Indeed, <br />keeping up with the scientific literature is a full time job. In fields like math, where raw computational power is needed to achieve, significant contributions are made by younger people. Inventing calculus, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig" rel="nofollow"> proving a statistical theorem</a>, then, is like running a 4 minute mile; <br />characterizing a cellular pathway is like moving a pile of bricks.jollyjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11314221247706242574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86835918606343456542009-10-20T21:57:28.803-04:002009-10-20T21:57:28.803-04:00This theory reminds me of something Steve Sailer o...This theory reminds me of something Steve Sailer once wrote (I tried to find the post but couldn't locate it) on the reason we got great rock and roll music from British bands in the 1960s. <br /><br />British teens were listening to black rhythm and blues music but there were no black people in Liverpool to play that music in clubs. So white people like Lennon, McCartney, etc.. were need to play. But they couldn't play it like blacks from the deep south and ended up transforming it into their own style.<br /><br />His point was that isolation and the lack of diversity created great new music, which is the opposite of what people tend to think.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760976352941496561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-87998562125427223602009-10-20T15:46:29.053-04:002009-10-20T15:46:29.053-04:00Even with today's fast communications, the sci...Even with today's fast communications, the scientific community continues to rely heavily on publication in peer-reviewed journals, which is a very slow process.<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com