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

321–330 of 500 posts

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#321

Post by wehrkeoruw »

I'm not sure it's a given that natural talent is even part of the equation. A decent number of the behavioral economics who have written popular books (Grit, Peak, to name a few) seem to be converging on the idea that talent isn't really worth discussing as a prerequisite to greatness.

That especially follows if you consider the luck factor mentioned in this article; is it really talent to have a unique way of looking at a topic that moves the topic forward? Or is the uniqueness merely a factor of the set of experiences a person just happens to bring to bear on a problem?

I say this because far too many people get caught up on talent, trying to find what their talent is, when they'd be much more productive simply obsessing.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#322

Post by wehrkeoruw »

ramphastidae wrote: post #275
yingw787 wrote: post #243

My take on genius is that it's akin to insanity, and for some of us, insanity doesn't seem to be so insane (which itself is an insane thing to say). Nikola Tesla ended his life alone, with a box of scrap parts as collateral for his rent ( https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about... ). Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "The Parable of the Madman" ( http://historyguide.org/europe/madman.html ), and apocryph…

I am convinced that this idea of people who are just too smart for society is way overblown and quite damaging. I see it so often in tech — the “10x” engineer who is just too smart for social norms like polite communication or hygiene. They are not held to them same social standards as others because they are “just different.” In reality, these folks just use the fact that no one else knows how their code works as an…

The people who dominate the stereotype of "genius" are also those who have debilitating mental disorders, and far too many people can't separate those two things.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#323

Post by drongoking »

Two reactions to this. I almost believe these:

1. The difference between collecting bus tickets, working on mathematics, and figuring the crystallization patterns of snowflakes is virtually nothing. To the people obsessed with it, it is all-important; to outsiders, all three look indistinguishably pointless. Only in retrospect can anyone say whether the activity led to something society considers important. The truly obsessed don't care.

2. Genius is overrated. We like stories of great individuals changing the world with their genius because we like stories and we dislike chance. But for nearly every invention and idea, history shows that multiple people were working on it at the same time. Civilization's progress is more a sequence of ideas whose time had come, but we prefer stories of great unique geniuses.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#324

Post by TwoHeadedBeast »

confidantlake wrote: post #303
icelancer wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Society deify successful people when in reality they are nothing more than serial lottery winners This is absolutely false and a terrible thing to perpetuate. Work ethic has the highest controllable coefficient to success as an output. Luck exists and the universe is probabilistic, yes, but it is not non-deterministic. This self-lashing of our community and amongst the populist movement that is growing in populari…

I believe genetics is more important than work ethic for being a pro soccer player.

You need both. To be the top one percent of what you do, you need natural ability and dedication.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#325

Post by wehrkeoruw »

b_emery wrote: post #225

In contrast to the essay, my hypothesis is currently that interest is developed. I used to be in the 'born talented camp', but then after reading Peak , The Talent Code , and other books on the subject (and essentially reviewing the research) I developed a 'born interested' hypothesis. In other words, some are born with innate interests that drive them toward deep and intense practice, developing skills and abilities…

I agree with you, but would go even further and say you're not born interested, the set of experiences you have are what shape your interest. It's both an important and useful idea to consider that people are born blank slates, and experiences drive us.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#326

Post by wehrkeoruw »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #23
mywacaday wrote: post #11

About 20 years ago I was having a quiet pint with a friend and he casually says "I wish I was passionate about something". It always stuck with me, still haven't found anything I'd consider I'm passionate about, still looking though!

Its funny, I'm the opposite, there's so many things I'm passionately interested in. The hard part is picking one or two. My one day I'll have to get back to that list is enough for a couple of lifetimes. I try top pick the ones that are the most useful, or perhaps least useless. Keep looking you'll find something.

Are you passionate in the same way the commenter's friend meant, though? Passion means different things to different people, and maybe his friend was expressing his desire to be more passionate, which actually sounds like a trait you share with him, considering you're not more passionate about any one particular thing over other things.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#327

Post by BeeOnRope »

jacquesm wrote: post #212
kkylin wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many parents we know (ourselves included) give up exercise. If at all possible, try to maintain some semblance of an exercise routine.

Simplest solution: if the traffic situation around you allows it get a bike. And use it for anything under 10 km or when you need to transport something heavy. Cheaper than the gym and far healthier, saves you money on w&t on your car as well.

Why is biking far healthier than the gym?

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#328

Post by wehrkeoruw »

_y5hn wrote: post #14
martonlanga wrote: post #7

Can you make yourself intentionally interested in a topic?

I was thinking the same thing. Being obsessively interested sounds neat when you watch others spend their entire lives, eg. collecting stamps and coins. According to this wisdom, when they find the rare gem that makes them a fortune they're geniuses. However, who can will themselves into becoming obsessive with something. Wouldn't it be kind of self-defeating if it is to take something out of it (ie. opposite of karm…

Or in other words, stop having fun?

There is value in relaxing, there is value in letting go of control and following your impulses. Trying to drive out all fun may lead to a more productive life, but at the cost of a pleasurable life.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#330

Post by joe_the_user »

sibeliuss wrote: post #320
throwaway713 wrote: post #191

I agree with his theory, but what I find particularly interesting is that I think most people do not have an obsessive interest in anything at all. And as someone who has obsessive interests in a lot of things (some “useful”, some not), that seems really odd to me: how can you just be satisfied to go to work, come home, watch TV, and go to bed each day? (Not saying that’s the wrong way to live, just saying it is surp…

I'm very new to having a kid but so far I've found it's helped focus my time more efficiently by getting better at multi-tasking, and then the remaining "interests" time is spent with a serious, no-time-to-waste approach. Also, you might be surprised at what having a kid does to you, in a good way. Like PG mentions in his essay, once people have kids they tend to be their focus, and it's satisfying to guide them and…

Yeah, kid, family and relationships seems like the basic answer to "why aren't most people obsessed with obscure X".

The chances are your kid will take all your time when they're young and then probably won't share obsessive interest X when they get older.

Just as much with relationships - you can't be an appealing mate by being successful, well-balanced and well-adjusted. Or you can share interest X with you mate. But latter approach gives one 1/10000th as many people - not impossible but it's something to think about.

I think there are some portion of people who could find hobby X appealing but then, consciously or unconsciously think about these considerations and push themselves back to mainstream.

Post reply on HN