Live data from Hacker News

The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

paulgraham.com

431–440 of 500 posts

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#431

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…

If you don't have time for your obsessive interest, then it's not really obsessive after all. A maximally obsessive person would have neglected distractions from his obsession.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#432

This sounds like a retread of Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Instead of putting the hours in, put in obsession instead. Whether by accident or design, I can imagine it being a flattering message on HN for regulars and for startup founders. It's wrong. No amount of hours or obsession compensates for lack of raw talent. Innate ability sets a talent ceiling. Hard work/time/obsession refine and manifest raw talent where it's t…

Yeh but what if you have no obsession to use your talent ? Then what ? What is the point of having amazing talent like singing but instead you get stuck in mc Donalds flipping burgers. Obsession is the key. Obsession & talent combined would be unstoppable.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#435
From the article: “The usual plan in education is to start with a broad, shallow focus, then gradually become more specialized. But I've done the opposite with my kids. I know I can count on their school to handle the broad, shallow part, so I take them deep."

I am with him on it. I witness this pattern in parents who seem to care about well rounded development of their kids. They keep their children constantly busy with a wide number of activities: on Monday the kid goes to dance lessons, on Tuesday they have English class, followed by drawing and music classes on Wednesday, etc. But round things cannot pierce and cut efficiently.

What if we focus on a single thing - that the kid shows some interest in - and encourage them to stick with it, focus on learning details and mastering the subject? Will it result in acquiring the skills and passion for diving deep into a chosen area, for exploring distant corners and intricate caves far from the crowds of tourists; not to be constantly lured by the songs of Sirens, that imprison people with generous dopamine shots of superficial excitement of shallow waters of something novel: a new flashy tech, another cool study subject, TV series, games, etc.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#436

This sounds like a retread of Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Instead of putting the hours in, put in obsession instead. Whether by accident or design, I can imagine it being a flattering message on HN for regulars and for startup founders. It's wrong. No amount of hours or obsession compensates for lack of raw talent. Innate ability sets a talent ceiling. Hard work/time/obsession refine and manifest raw talent where it's t…

"Innate ability sets a talent ceiling. Hard work/time/obsession refine and manifest raw talent where it's there, but can't compensate when it isn't. (And a bad environment can cripple it - but that's a different debate.)" Absolutely. I can't stand it when someone says, "if I did it, anybody can." Not only is it wrong; it can be downright abusive.

[deleted]

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I am not convinced that this is true. I think a lot more people are really interested or passionate about something than you may realize, but not all of them talk about those things to everyone. Alternatively, their passion might be what they do for a living. So for ins…

I have a hard time agreeing with this. In my experience people's single most interesting thing to talk about is themselves. Once you notice that, you see it everywhere. It's such a lure, it's almost irresistible. I've made it a habit to ask them a couple of open questions and then just let them have at it. In a few situations folks lost business with me simply because they were too preoccupied with talking about them…

When you ask me open ended question and I am able to talk about that topic, I will talk about that topic. If people ask me about family I talk about family, if people ask me about work I talk about work and if they ask me about sport I talk about sport.

It has nothing to do with what I find most interesting to talk about. It has to do with me assuming that this is what you want to talk about, since you asked about it.

I also kind of expect the person I talk to make own pronouncements about the topic they started, without having to ask "what about you". When I am asking "what about you", it is usually admission that this is not going well, conversation feels one sided and I am desperately trying to make it two sided so I am not the asshole there.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#438

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…

> making dinner

That seemed an odd thing to include. Making food is a rewarding and intriguing pursuit. It combines aesthetics, science, social benefit and sensual rewards. It has a rich history and tons of controversies to poke at.

I never feel that making dinner is a waste of my time.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#439
post #224

Before I read the article, I thought the “bus ticket” was referencing William Sidis, who in the early 20th century gave a mathematics lecture at MIT at 10, a Harvard student at 11, was expected to revolutionize math but then dropped out of the public eye to write strange books, one being an etymology of train and bus tickets across the US, collecting several thousand unique stubs. I bet that you could learn a lot abo…

> his definition of utility leans towards the economic sense.

I think his preference is probably closer to the generality and “interestingness” of the discovery.

Darwin’s theory is obviously very general and applicable in a multitude of domains in addition to the original one he worked on. Although Ramanujan’s series were not obviously general but they imply some deep mathematical patterns that are more general than specific forms. Neither had much economic utility during the discoverer’s lifetime.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#440
Sometimes I get angry when reading stuff like this: the reason is that whoever analyses the genius or success factor always misses among other points and features the importance of LUCK. Someone could say Luck does not exist for the prepared mind (paraphrasing Pasteur) but as the author of this post pointed out , had Darwin been born in 1709 instead of 1809 probably no one would have heard of him. This is the luck to be in the right place at the right time doing the right things with the right people.
Post reply on HN