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

101–110 of 500 posts

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#101

Post by sjg007 »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #95

>But you can never be sure. In fact, here's an interesting idea that's also rather alarming if it's true: it may be that to do great work, you also have to waste a lot of time. >In many different areas, reward is proportionate to risk. If that rule holds here, then the way to find paths that lead to truly great work is to be willing to expend a lot of effort on things that turn out to be every bit as unpromising as t…

Musicians who are breadth players typically become backing/house band members. You see these folks all the time in awards shows, concerts etc...

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#102

Post by georgespencer »

astrodev wrote: post #94
galfarragem wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society deify successful people when in reality they are nothing more than serial lottery winners. For every "Ronaldo" there are a myriad of people trying to get there that will end their life as losers because they made an high-stakes bet and lost. The truth in unconfortable and nobody wants to listen about it.

To be fair, Ronaldo is known for exceptional work ethic.

That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#103

Post by fuzzfactor »

notahacker wrote: post #38
tompccs wrote: post #16

I think this is correct. The bad news is we are creating systems which minimise the number of geniuses entering each field. In the past, science was an eccentric hobby, not particularly valued and certainly not a viable career option. Today it's all of these things - like becoming a doctor. Telling your mother you want to be a scientist is far better than saying you want to be a musician. A hundred years ago that wou…

There's a much more obvious difference between now and 100 years ago: 100 years ago the education and financial support for scientific research was largely a closed shop for European-descended upper middle class men. There are certainly many geniuses obsessively researching into areas that stimulate their intellectual interest today that wouldn't have had the opportunity to do so back then. I'm not sure being a scien…

I would say:

100 years ago the education and financial support for scientific research by European-descended upper middle class men

was a thing.

50 years ago I wasn't expecting it to come back, it wouldn't have helped me anyway, overall scientific opportunities were far worse by then and the trend has continued. I wasn't waiting around for an uptick, I just started right away putting in the effort to try and compensate.

And I agree with this completely:

>There are certainly many geniuses obsessively researching into areas that stimulate their intellectual interest today that wouldn't have had the opportunity to do so back then.

There is so much brilliance in so many cultures through so many millennia, it can be seen that education and financial support are not even essential for genius, mainly for documenting, recognizing, and leveraging the influence of a very very small percentage of geniuses through history, only those few whose works were preserved and/or applied.

Surviving largely within a system of lesser thinkers whose works were better preserved and/or more stongly applied.

Which is why I think

>inventing new types of consumer electronics

can be a good thing if the consumer is given careful enough consideration.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#104

Post by abj »

glofish wrote: post #92
abj wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stop thinking about applied fun theory to card game mechanics. I'm building a card game where you never leave the flow state. (I know there's been a lot of cash grab card games recently. I just genuinely enjoy card games.) Specifically this question - Why is soccer more widely played than checkers? Physical Mastery - repetitive exploration of real world ball physics encourages a sense of mastery. Checkers doe…

I don't want to sound overly critical of your explanations but you seem to ignore the most important difference: We play soccer with our entire bodies, muscles, heart, legs, lungs get a workout. Not to insult the players but mind and thought processes are somewhat secondary, it is about the "lizard brain": attack and defend with instincts and reflexes. When you play checkers it is your mind that gets a workout. It is…

That's a great point! There's no workout/lizard brain attack defense component. It's also missing a physical exercise component. You're right that does seem like a huge part of the appeal. I'm wondering what I could do to add that appeal.

Beat Saber seems to handle the workout component slightly.

What about a VR version where cards come flying at you and you have to dodge them/block them? That might wake up the lizard/attack/defense part of the brain. That actually sounds pretty fun.

I don't think it was overly critical at all and appreciate the response!

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#105

Post by barrkel »

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 is that that game turned out to be lucrative.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#106

Post by friendlybus »

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…

>It's kind of hard to take a coherent message away from that. Should you become a competitive gamer for the millions?

If you told these guys to be a competitive gamer for the millions, they probably would have stuck to competitive fishing or whatever they were doing anyway. Taking a message or leadership from it is kind of the antithesis of the point. The point is that some social pursuits are the birthplace of the next big thing and some people who are focused on socializing need to make the choice on pursuits that have a potential and pursuits that don't like. Dance class is pretty dead as a career, but we're going to need people who can sort quality from quantity in a few years, the people focused on a qualitative pursuit socially need to pick a field where it's obvious that's needed like journalism or the swath of video games sure to flood the market.

It doesn't have much to do with rational decision making in detail and is instead a generalized story about the different directions in life you can choose.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#107

Post by soneca »

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…

> "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.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#108

Post by rhlsthrm »

georgespencer wrote: post #102
astrodev wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Ronaldo is known for exceptional work ethic.

That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field.

Yes, but work ethic and obsession are the absolute baseline you need.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#109

Post by viburnum »

arbuge wrote: post #68

> It's not merely that the returns from following a path are hard to predict. They change dramatically over time. 1830 was a really good time to be obsessively interested in natural history. If Darwin had been born in 1709 instead of 1809, we might never have heard of him. This risk might be somewhat mitigated by the changing level of societal interest in different areas over time serving as a guide to interesting fi…

Darwin was also lucky to have been born very rich.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#110

Post by Ididntdothis »

astrodev wrote: post #94
galfarragem wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society deify successful people when in reality they are nothing more than serial lottery winners. For every "Ronaldo" there are a myriad of people trying to get there that will end their life as losers because they made an high-stakes bet and lost. The truth in unconfortable and nobody wants to listen about it.

To be fair, Ronaldo is known for exceptional work ethic.

Most top athletes have excellent work ethic but they also have natural ability. No amount of work ethic can compensate for lack of natural ability. You absolutely need that to get to the top.
Post reply on HN