Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 500 posts

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#131

Post by soneca »

rapsey wrote: post #125
soneca wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "pursue rationally unjustifiable interests" I disagree of how you define rationality here. If someone feels it serves them fine to play 14 hours of a game, it seems perfectly rational for me. Especially in the case that you mentioned, where they were playing before any big money was on the table. It means they liked, despite a lot of people judging them with an air of superiority.

It is objectively irrational. The ones who made a lot of money are 1%. The rest wasted their youth pursuing an impossible dream. They sacrificed their social development and their future job prospects.

No it is not. If someone is playing 14 hours of a game that is not even giving a lot of money (not even to any 1%, which is the initial situation mentioned before DOTA was big), then obviously they are not doing that for the money.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#132

Post by jamesrcole »

> there are some heuristics you can use to guess whether an obsession might be one that matters. For example, it's more promising if you're creating something, rather than just consuming something someone else creates. It's more promising if something you're interested in is difficult, especially if it's more difficult for other people than it is for you. And the obsessions of talented people are more likely to be promising. When talented people become interested in random things, they're not truly random.

You can be very rigorous in trying to understand some topic, such that you won’t be satisfied until you understand it from first principles. Since so few people do this, it can lead to new discoveries.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#133

Post by analog31 »

skybrian wrote: post #112

This essay has a very individualist underlying assumption that one person has to do it all. Maybe that's not true? Could a community of hobbyists who share the same obsession make progress? If a lot of the effort comes from going down blind alleys until you hit on something, it seems like the work could be pretty easily distributed?

I believe the answer is yes. I'm thinking about the Homebrew Computer Club, the framers of the Constitution, and the musicians who developed modern jazz. It sounds odd, but the Constitution was written by a bunch of rich guys who happened to share a passion for learning about history and politics. When one of their kids got in trouble, the only advice they could come up with was to read yet another old book in Latin.

Jazz was commercially viable for a time, maybe into the 1950s, but then the musicians had to adopt a model of playing boring commercial music, and teaching music to kids for a living, while pushing the boundaries of jazz in living rooms and academic music departments.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#134

Post by 0x445442 »

INGELRII wrote: post #32

Side note about Newton and occult. Newton was not just a physicist who dabbled with occult. He turned occult into physics. Before Newton scientists and natural philosophers like Descartes believed that movements were caused by physical contact. Newton started traditionally and proposed the existence of ether that transmits forces. When he became interested in alchemy, he replaced ether with occult forces that repel a…

I'm always amazed when I'm reminded of the genesis of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Whether you think it sprung solely from his mind or not, the thought experiment is so simple a young child can understand but look at the ramifications which follow. Just remarkable.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#135

Post by NPMaxwell »

You may think there is some rational choice to be made about obsessive curiosity. Maybe not. In 1960, my mom lived near a six year old who could fix electric stuff. Everyone in the neighborhood knew him and brought him things to fix. TV's were no problem; dead radios were great; telephones were cool. He was a super happy kid with a constant enthusiasm and a sparkle in his eye, running home from school every day to see what he could learn and what neighbors had brought for his help. He had thrown circuit breakers in the house many times. One day, there was a blackout and he came down from his room to apologize to this parents, again. They had an idea and they pointed out the window. "Well you really did it this time. Look, the entire city went down." And that was it. He stopped with electronics. At first he was morose and anxious, but his parents figured he would get used to his new life. He left for college the same disconnected and subdued kid he became at six. My mom bumped into him again around 1990, when he was about 35, and he never did recover: still sad, puffy, disconnected from people, uninspired, hating his job, unhappy with friends.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#136

Post by usrusr »

spydum wrote: post #69
DJHenk wrote: post #67

> Which leads us to the second feature of this kind of obsession: there is no point. A bus ticket collector's love is disinterested. They're not doing it to impress us or to make themselves rich, but for its own sake. I don't agree with this. They might very well do it to impress others. Most of all, they do it to impress each other. Go to any specialized forum of subreddit and you will find members arguing over deta…

I think there is room for three types of folks along this dimension. Yes, some people enjoy the validation, but there are plenty of obsessive folks who simply don't care for the validation. They take delight in the subject matter independent of peers.

Definitely a lot of peer validation in niche obsession. But the single person niche exists as well (and people in a bigger niche, but isolated), and there the only person to impress is oneself. A bigger the niche means that chances to stumble upon something still undiscovered are lower, so peer validation is irrelevant or maybe even a negative signal for obsessions that might turn into genious.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#137

Post by michaelbuckbee »

lazyjones wrote: post #82
sgentle wrote: post #72

Competitive gaming is a particularly good example of this. I followed most of the rise of Dota from trashy Warcraft 3 mod to Valve's multi-million-dollar-prize-pool juggernaut. The first few crops of Dota millionaires all had the same backstory: "I played this game 14 hours a day. If there were tournaments at all they didn't really pay anything. My parents said I was wasting my life. I never had a girlfriend. Everyon…

> Perhaps the message is just that millions are delivered to those with a combination of luck and the freedom to pursue rationally unjustifiable interests. Where do you see that message? No luck was involved in your example, just hard work on behalf of the good players and of the Dota developers, and pursuing a hobby with passion is perfectly rational.

The luck comes in that they opted to play Dota at just the right time. If someone had instead opted into becoming a really good Heroes of the Storm player (only to have the developer stop work on it) they would be in a really different position.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#138

Post by cosmojg »

skybrian wrote: post #112

This essay has a very individualist underlying assumption that one person has to do it all. Maybe that's not true? Could a community of hobbyists who share the same obsession make progress? If a lot of the effort comes from going down blind alleys until you hit on something, it seems like the work could be pretty easily distributed?

I'm pretty sure you just described modern academia.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#139

Post by keiferski »

usrusr wrote: post #118
keiferski wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does being good at Dota count as being a genius? I think you are confusing financial success with contributing to artistic/scientific/intellectual progress.

Don't get hung up on the term genius, focus on the chance discovery part that is the actual topic of the article. Those first wave gaming professionals discovered a personal product market fit without trying, by being obsessed with an absurdly unprofitable pastime.

The article title contains the word ‘genius’ and it’s about doing ‘great work’. The fact that some people managed to turn their consumption-based entertainment hobby into a financial success really has nothing to do with genius or great work.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#140

Post by foogazi »

sgentle wrote: post #72

Competitive gaming is a particularly good example of this. I followed most of the rise of Dota from trashy Warcraft 3 mod to Valve's multi-million-dollar-prize-pool juggernaut. The first few crops of Dota millionaires all had the same backstory: "I played this game 14 hours a day. If there were tournaments at all they didn't really pay anything. My parents said I was wasting my life. I never had a girlfriend. Everyon…

Chance favors the prepared mind I guess

They played the game they loved and they loved to win at it

When money arrived into e-games they were most prepared

I don’t like competitive gaming so even if you tell me there are millions to be made I still won’t do it, it seems something so unattainable

Post reply on HN