A fair part of the abnormal productivity of (for example) Einstein & von Neumann is probably down to when they were born.
To have a hope in hell of being the Greatest Of All Time, a scientist has to work in a scientific culture with (1) a supply of big & solvable open problems to attack, (2) sensible earlier ideas & theories on which to build, and often also (3) good enough technology to collect evidence that might confirm new theories. But it follows that a scientist doesn’t have a chance of being the GOAT unless they’re born at the right time. If they’re born too early they end up like, say, Aristotle, someone impressive and historically important but nonetheless long superseded; if they’re born too late, most of the prestigious solvable problems will have been picked off by someone else, and even if the scientist picks one off themselves, they’re still trying to stand out in a more crowded field.
If Einstein had been born in 1500, or 1950, he might’ve been a Galileo or a Copernicus, or a Bekenstein or a Perlmutter, but he wouldn’t’ve been an Einstein.
Of course this can’t the whole explanation for why scientists differ so much in productivity, because you still have big differences in productivity even within a cohort of scientists all the same age. Nonetheless, if we want to explain why we’re talking about Einstein instead of e.g. John Archibald Wheeler, the fact that Einstein was in the right time and the right place probably has a lot to do with it. While I agree that part of the reason for von Neumann & Einstein’s vast productivity is the nonlinearity of the ability-productivity relationship, I think it’s worth bearing in mind the right-time-right-place effect as well. (Knowing about that effect also makes Yudkowsky’s brain-line diagram less surprising.)
Along these lines, consider how productive all of physics was between 1905-1950 or so. Einstein and Von Neumann were incredibly productive, but they also lived during an incredibly productive time to be a physicist.
Also consider that the way physics is structured now (due to the post 1950s boom and then bust), its not clear either man would even try to be a physicist. Einstein only ever had one paper peer reviewed, and it upset him greatly.
Einstein only ever had one paper peer reviewed, and it upset him greatly.
Well admittedly, one of the things one learns very early in a scientific career is that writing a paper good enough that peer reviewers won’t absolutely hate it is a surprisingly high target to hit.
I’m not sure I would agree with the premise that Aristotle is less important than Einstein. Einstein greatly accelerated several fields of physics. Aristotle has long since been superceded in essentially every field, but his ideas still inform (indirectly) more modern work in logic, ethics, metaphysics, and so on. He was certainly productive, no doubt about that.
Also, there’s no finite set of important solvable problems. Today, the available solvable problems may or may not be in physics, but there are plenty on other fields.
I’m not sure I would agree with the premise that Aristotle is less important than Einstein. [...]
My physics-centric bias is showing! I was comparing Aristotle-as-physicist to Einstein, not comparing Aristotle-as-all-round-smart-guy to Einstein, and I should’ve consciously realized that’s what I was doing.
Also, there’s no finite set of important solvable problems. Today, the available solvable problems may or may not be in physics, but there are plenty on other fields.
I wonder how many of those big, solvable problems there are. It’s not clear there are any (more) big unifying theories to be had in, say, macroeconomics or sociology. What would it mean to be a 21st century Einstein of one of those fields, I wonder?
I wonder how many of those big, solvable problems there are. It’s not clear there are any (more) big unifying theories to be had in, say, macroeconomics or sociology. What would it mean to be a 21st century Einstein of one of those fields, I wonder?
Aristotle in all likelihood was relating ideas that were collected already in his personal library or the Library of Alexandria. The way he wrote about the various topics he did implied that they were coming from other sources.
A fair part of the abnormal productivity of (for example) Einstein & von Neumann is probably down to when they were born.
To have a hope in hell of being the Greatest Of All Time, a scientist has to work in a scientific culture with (1) a supply of big & solvable open problems to attack, (2) sensible earlier ideas & theories on which to build, and often also (3) good enough technology to collect evidence that might confirm new theories. But it follows that a scientist doesn’t have a chance of being the GOAT unless they’re born at the right time. If they’re born too early they end up like, say, Aristotle, someone impressive and historically important but nonetheless long superseded; if they’re born too late, most of the prestigious solvable problems will have been picked off by someone else, and even if the scientist picks one off themselves, they’re still trying to stand out in a more crowded field.
If Einstein had been born in 1500, or 1950, he might’ve been a Galileo or a Copernicus, or a Bekenstein or a Perlmutter, but he wouldn’t’ve been an Einstein.
Of course this can’t the whole explanation for why scientists differ so much in productivity, because you still have big differences in productivity even within a cohort of scientists all the same age. Nonetheless, if we want to explain why we’re talking about Einstein instead of e.g. John Archibald Wheeler, the fact that Einstein was in the right time and the right place probably has a lot to do with it. While I agree that part of the reason for von Neumann & Einstein’s vast productivity is the nonlinearity of the ability-productivity relationship, I think it’s worth bearing in mind the right-time-right-place effect as well. (Knowing about that effect also makes Yudkowsky’s brain-line diagram less surprising.)
Along these lines, consider how productive all of physics was between 1905-1950 or so. Einstein and Von Neumann were incredibly productive, but they also lived during an incredibly productive time to be a physicist.
Also consider that the way physics is structured now (due to the post 1950s boom and then bust), its not clear either man would even try to be a physicist. Einstein only ever had one paper peer reviewed, and it upset him greatly.
Well admittedly, one of the things one learns very early in a scientific career is that writing a paper good enough that peer reviewers won’t absolutely hate it is a surprisingly high target to hit.
I’m not sure I would agree with the premise that Aristotle is less important than Einstein. Einstein greatly accelerated several fields of physics. Aristotle has long since been superceded in essentially every field, but his ideas still inform (indirectly) more modern work in logic, ethics, metaphysics, and so on. He was certainly productive, no doubt about that.
Also, there’s no finite set of important solvable problems. Today, the available solvable problems may or may not be in physics, but there are plenty on other fields.
My physics-centric bias is showing! I was comparing Aristotle-as-physicist to Einstein, not comparing Aristotle-as-all-round-smart-guy to Einstein, and I should’ve consciously realized that’s what I was doing.
I wonder how many of those big, solvable problems there are. It’s not clear there are any (more) big unifying theories to be had in, say, macroeconomics or sociology. What would it mean to be a 21st century Einstein of one of those fields, I wonder?
I’d start by looking at these lists.
Aristotle in all likelihood was relating ideas that were collected already in his personal library or the Library of Alexandria. The way he wrote about the various topics he did implied that they were coming from other sources.