Positive correlations between dormancy and genius in tech

[Tenacity]

The popular sentiment, in mainstream technology media especially, regarding dormancy is that "doing" is a must for change and growth, thus, the opposite, "dormancy", will counteract growth.

But thinking in depth might not "count" as "doing" something, because it is not measurable by the outside world and society unless translated into something tangible.

Yet, it is crucial for magnitudes of systematic invention - Is it not?

The opposite of "agile"/scrum isn't "waterfall": it's being left to think in depth without unnecessary distraction. The whole tech environment thinks a modality that was originated by a war general will be conducive to success, and then the brand new child, agile, supposedly iterative and adapted for cycles of innovation and invention, now merely acts as a logistical facilitator pressuring speed than enabling true discovery. It is closer to a modality / set of procedures created for the sake of simplicity. The outside world wouldn't be able to provide the right type of validation compared to a divergent thought.

I say this as I have recently & throughout my life received judgment from family and peers about pressures of achievement by their definitions. I have to mentally reassert myself as a result of dogma. Wanted to see if any of you share in a similar frustration, or if I'm being overly naive to believe that it is not only okay but completely necessary and a -requirement- for me so be thinking in isolation as to come up with new solutions for the world and -then- act upon them, rather then throwing pieces of new yet thoughtless garbage at the world and expecting people to magically tell me about problems/solutions for me to overanalyze into a Neverland I'll never get to enjoy. I believe in "failing fast" as much as the next modern techie, but when I see something that was half-baked and released, I'm like... why... did you put that out and completely damage your reputation in getting XX hundred 1 star reviews... Just because your investors told you to, or your business-savvy comrades itching for the dollars to reign in pressured you? Do you know what I mean? Do you observe this?

I don't think I am on a path to "genius", however, I think that the term "genius" is the only trait I could possibly value highly as an NT that would counteract the incoming noise of the world that tells me I am not supposed to be the way I am.

Are there any people who are alive now or had lived this way throughout history that come to mind that can represent this behavioral preference as social proof, especially to act in defense in times of self-doubt? Others beyond Einstein, Bill Gates... Who are the people that are alive today that I can look up to in times when I feel guilty for choosing to be socially isolated?

 

[Black Rose]

If you are in the tech field you must get to know your craft well or else remain ignorant and not learn anything. I study A.I. and think of ways to design it. Yet I am alone in my endeavor. I cannot take classes on it nor work on projects with others. Learning is much slower without a team. And I need one. It's rare for people to go it alone and succeed. You need the right initiative and smarts. But a team is much more a benefit. Because you need to explain what your ideas are. Your thoughts become much clearer when you practice expressing them to others.

The person I look up to most is Ray Kurzweil. I read 3 of his books and they gave me so much to think about.

I think that if you find the right people, the people you want to be around, then isolation is not a problem because you found you clique. People that attract you.

 

[Tenacity]

If you are in the tech field you must get to know your craft well or else remain ignorant and not learn anything. I study A.I. and think of ways to design it. Yet I am alone in my endeavor. I cannot take classes on it nor work on projects with others. Learning is much slower without a team. And I need one. It's rare for people to go it alone and succeed. You need the right initiative and smarts. But a team is much more a benefit. Because you need to explain what your ideas are. Your thoughts become much clearer when you practice expressing them to others.

The person I look up to most is Ray Kurzweil. I read 3 of his books and they gave me so much to think about.

I think that if you find the right people, the people you want to be around, then isolation is not a problem because you found you clique. People that attract you.

I am fortunately beyond the stage where I need to get to know my craft. I have mastery over several things when it comes to both technological execution as well as team leadership/management. But right now, I don't need a team. However, I don't deny the need for a team in the future. Also, my learning is at least 10x faster without a team at present.

I aim to de-emphasize the importance of conventional systems currently in place which over-emphasize project management and time management over innovation and inventiveness. I get frustrated seeing the same things being released into the world, when with an extra, say, hour of research someone could have been able to know that they were building something that already existed. That, to me, appears to be a total waste unless the person was doing it for self-learning / experience.

Which books? And which book would you recommend to someone new to Ray Kurzweil, like myself?

That's the thing. I don't want to be around people, at least not right now. LOL.

 

[Cognisant]

The opposite of "agile"/scrum isn't "waterfall": it's being left to think in depth without unnecessary distraction. The whole tech environment thinks a modality that was originated by a war general will be conducive to success, and then the brand new child, agile, supposedly iterative and adapted for cycles of innovation and invention, now merely acts as a logistical facilitator pressuring speed than enabling true discovery.

A lot of "agile" teams have no clue what agile is.
Agile development is all about iteration, you build a thing, you assess the thing, then you rebuild the thing, assess again, rebuild, so on an so forth, not pumping out new functionality every two weeks, agile when done right is actually slower than waterfall because the goal is quality not quantity.

 

[Black Rose]

Which books? And which book would you recommend to someone new to Ray Kurzweil, like myself?

To start I recommend The Singularity is Near (2005)

The other to books he wrote that I have read are:

How to Create a Mind (2012)

The Age of Spiritual Machine (1999)

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I dunno, I’m someone who can spend years drilling down in problems without ever committing to a finalized solution. By defining concrete plans with deadlines I force myself to arrive at a compromise between time and quality. It does become a problem however when other people don’t understand that certain problems require potentially fruitless thinking and experimenting for a long time until one idea comes up and changes everything. So due to this I spend huge amounts of time outside of working hours thinking and tinkering. Luckily for me I enjoy that process and treat it as a hobby of sorts.

 

[rlnb]

The problem with the tech industry is that it is stagnating after 2 decades of hyper-growth and people aren't willing to acknowledge this. This results in large team (getting paid a lot) going nowhere. But in order to justify their existence, they need to keep 'busy' and this results in over-engineering, having pointless meetings, coming up with convoluted frameworks, etc.

The time has come to look at software as a tool (a lot of which has been automated and abstracted) and start solving real problems.

In the current ecosystem you are rewarded for overcomplicating a simple problem, hiring a team of 20 to do something that can be done by 2.

Places like Whatsapp are a good exception (has 50 employees)

 

[Tenacity]

The opposite of "agile"/scrum isn't "waterfall": it's being left to think in depth without unnecessary distraction. The whole tech environment thinks a modality that was originated by a war general will be conducive to success, and then the brand new child, agile, supposedly iterative and adapted for cycles of innovation and invention, now merely acts as a logistical facilitator pressuring speed than enabling true discovery.

A lot of "agile" teams have no clue what agile is.
Agile development is all about iteration, you build a thing, you assess the thing, then you rebuild the thing, assess again, rebuild, so on an so forth, not pumping out new functionality every two weeks, agile when done right is actually slower than waterfall because the goal is quality not quantity.

Exactly. I'm not anti-agile, and it is effective when done right, but it doesn't make sense to half-ass it.

What urks me is when people decide to ship something that is overly imperfect and just barely works. I'm a believer that aesthetic is essential to the first impression of the product, and you risk long-term adoption if you present something that is sloppy and out-of-date. The functionalities must also be robust. Both conditions of having solid robustness and solid user experience must be met for success.

If we personify tech, we can think of it kind of like the lack of allure in dating someone new who didn't come prepared. So, you sit down with your date, and it's like, okay, you say you've got a great brain on the inside, but there are food stains on your shirt, your style is archaic, like that of the 1700s, you smell, and you only know how to talk about ways to save money on car insurance when I don't even have a car.

There is also the flip side where something is released that is "well-dressed" yet lacks the ability to actually solve anything.

Which books? And which book would you recommend to someone new to Ray Kurzweil, like myself?

To start I recommend The Singularity is Near (2005)

The other to books he wrote that I have read are:

How to Create a Mind (2012)

The Age of Spiritual Machine (1999)

Thank you!!

I dunno, I’m someone who can spend years drilling down in problems without ever committing to a finalized solution. By defining concrete plans with deadlines I force myself to arrive at a compromise between time and quality. It does become a problem however when other people don’t understand that certain problems require potentially fruitless thinking and experimenting for a long time until one idea comes up and changes everything. So due to this I spend huge amounts of time outside of working hours thinking and tinkering. Luckily for me I enjoy that process and treat it as a hobby of sorts.

Same. I have concrete plans with deadlines for top priority items, though I no longer measure myself via pomodoro like I used to in 25min intervals. This is because I found that every time I've had to hear an alarm go off, it distracted me while I was in deep thought, and I lose a thought I can never get back. Basically, creates too much net "transaction cost".

The problem with the tech industry is that it is stagnating after 2 decades of hyper-growth and people aren't willing to acknowledge this. This results in large team (getting paid a lot) going nowhere. But in order to justify their existence, they need to keep 'busy' and this results in over-engineering, having pointless meetings, coming up with convoluted frameworks, etc.

The time has come to look at software as a tool (a lot of which has been automated and abstracted) and start solving real problems.

In the current ecosystem you are rewarded for overcomplicating a simple problem, hiring a team of 20 to do something that can be done by 2.

Places like Whatsapp are a good exception (has 50 employees)

Yes. Definitely. And it is stagnating due to lack of intellectual capital required for new scientific and technological innovation. And we have not enough intellectual capital because not enough managers truly question the strategic innovations at play, whether or not they even exist, or how to push for its' advancement.

It is a fear of risk that increases exponentially the more people you lead or manage.

It is, then, no wonder that our many of our world's greatest geniuses created inventions in solitude.

 

[scorpiomover]

Exactly. I'm not anti-agile, and it is effective when done right, but it doesn't make sense to half-ass it.

If we personify tech, we can think of it kind of like the lack of allure in dating someone new who didn't come prepared. So, you sit down with your date, and it's like, okay, you say you've got a great brain on the inside, but there are food stains on your shirt, your style is archaic, like that of the 1700s, you smell, and you only know how to talk about ways to save money on car insurance when I don't even have a car.

There is also the flip side where something is released that is "well-dressed" yet lacks the ability to actually solve anything.

Think of how most dating works.

You go online. He sounds great. He's a fireman. Loves to help people. Great picture. Fantastic physique. Then you meet in person and he looks nothing like his picture. It was all a bait-and-switch to reel you in.

Now take a look at when people talk about Agile and Scrum. It's online, boasting about how great it is, or in CVs, when people are trying to convince you to hire them.

The productivity you see in Silicon Vally, is about putting out LOTS of ideas, with the hope that some of them will turn out well (ENTP-stype). It's the American Business Model applied to modern computing.

 

[scorpiomover]

The popular sentiment, in mainstream technology media especially, regarding dormancy is that "doing" is a must for change and growth, thus, the opposite, "dormancy", will counteract growth.

The purpose of doing in tech companies, is to MAKE MONEY. More things you make and sell, the more money you stand to make.

However, tech is sold on the basis that it's "super clever", too clever for most people to understand. Hence, it can only be sold on reputation.

A company whose reputation is that they churn out as much as possible of things you don't understand, to make as much money as possible, sounds like a giant scam. Ergo, lots of people do not buy from such a company.

A company whose reputation is that they churn out as much as possible of things you don't understand, because they care about humanity and just want to advance humanity and technology as much as possible, sounds like a really great company whose products would probably be things you'd love. Ergo, lots of people buy from such a company.

Therefore, for a tech company to make money, it needs to give the impression that it's employees care about advancing technology but don't care about money.

So things are talked about as if they are about advancing technology. But if you think about its pros and cons, the things that tech companies do make more sense if they were about money.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If people had the time to think we would have airplanes in 1000 BC. The thing is you can only think about as much as you have time and resources to feed yourself so you can think. Ergo philosophers were smart people, but they had to make money so they had to teach and do stuff. In their free time they would work on whatever they liked.

Leonardo Da Vinci was a freak of occassion. He both had patrons and also had talent. Also he lived in culture where knowledge was considered important. He could do paintings and then after he got money he could tinker and work on inventions. The issue was he was only one man and ultimately he didnt invent that much. His art though was great.