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…
The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius
431–440 of 500 posts
Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius
#432This 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…
Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius
#433Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius
#434Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius
#435I 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
#436This 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.
Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius
#437Earlier 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…
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
#438I 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…
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
#439Before 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…
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.