Live data from Hacker News

The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

news.yahoo.com

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#11
The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong.

In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is predictable: you see prizes being awarded to people who are fleshing out ideas which have been known for a half century; the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, so you have to work for years in the nitty-gritty to push the bounds. Hence, the prize winners are old.

But this doesn't tell us anything about physicists and when they are capable of genius (and how could it? does anyone really think that human nature has changed?), it tells us about the stagnation of the field.

The really interesting question is this: is the stagnation of physics more attributable to (a) some combination of fundamental technological/intellectual limitations or (b) institutional/social pathologies in Academia. Most people say '(a)', but I (as a young physicist) worry that '(b)' plays a substantial role.

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#12
post #4

Seems more like "Genius strikes later unless there is a revolutionary breakthrough in your field, in which case it strikes early." Makes sense, since a breakthrough typically opens the door for other relatively low-hanging breakthroughs.

Right. It seems like it could go back to being the younger kids' game if there is some major breakthrough.

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#13
post #9
post #2

As a 48-year-old (!), I can't tell you how hopeful this article made me feel.

I certainly don't claim to be a genius, but at 41 I'm writing the best code of my life.

But in ten years you'll run across an old code fragment and wonder "What was I thinking?" That's the way it works for me, anyway.

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#14
You might want to consider tattooing this somewhere:

"It may be that young scientists did better, in part, because they never learned the older ways of thinking and could think in new ways."

Replace 'scientists' with e.g. 'musicians', 'designers', 'developers', or your profession of choice.

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#15

The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong. In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is pre…

Would you mind elaborating about (b) more? Thanks!

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#16

The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong. In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is pre…

or c.) random chance.

Kuhn would say that science consists of long periods of "normal science", in which people flesh out basic theories that have been known for decades, and short periods of "paradigm shifts", where previously ignored evidence is suddenly incorporated into brand-new, world-shifting theories that completely upend the old order. Just because you happen to be in one of those long doldrums of normal science doesn't mean that something is wrong with science, or that the field has stagnated. It just means you're not in a revolutionary paradigm-shifting phase.

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#17
post #13
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly don't claim to be a genius, but at 41 I'm writing the best code of my life.

But in ten years you'll run across an old code fragment and wonder "What was I thinking?" That's the way it works for me, anyway.

It may be unrelated, but I have noticed I appreciate statically typed languages a lot more lately. Having the compiler looking over my shoulder makes a lot of things easier.

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#19
post #10

If you need to provide a breakthrough in a scientific field, you need to know first what has already been done. Even Einstein took some time to understand metric tensor for his general theory of relativity. Point is we may not be able to solve the aging problem, however as we progress we our children will be smarter to grasp complex subjects in shorter time. How much short time ? That will depend on the intellect of…

nevertheless, Einsten didn't pause much for advanced Maths at his "wonder year", and seem to have given the subject more thought only when older...

Re: The Stroke of Genius Strikes Later in Modern Life

#20

The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong. In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is pre…

Another way to say the same thing the article says is that «science has been rewarding creativity less and less». In that case, both (a) and (b) start to seem subtly related. Because once your hero ceases being a random wacko who was curious about weird stuff and comes to be a laborious researcher that climbed a lot of ladders, then the amount of effort you give to weird ideas decreases.

Another way to put it is that big science is replacing science, and i think it is. (Feyerabend's perspectives, albeit very different from that, seem to point out many of the problems...)

Post reply on HN