13 Smart Guys Vs. 1 Genius

[Sapphire Harp]

So, I came across this video by complete accident, but I thought it was pretty cool and I know some people here could appreciate it. This is a speech by Malcolm Gladwell (an author and writer for the New Yorker) about two individuals who solved impossible problems. (One deciphered Linear B and the other solved Fermat's theorem.)

Gladwell discusses the methods the two geniuses use to crack their puzzles, and comes up with some interesting things. I've never heard of the 10,000 hours theory to achieve mastery of any given subject. He also postulates that 13 smart guys might be a more effective problem solving team than a single genius.

It's 40 minutes, but I think it's a very good watch. Take a look.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/gladwell

~~~What do you think is worth spending 10,000 hours on?~~~

*

P.S. I wasn't really sure where to put this one, so I figured here's as good as anywhere else.
​

 

[hopefulmonster]

So, I came across this video by complete accident, but I thought it was pretty cool and I know some people here could appreciate it. This is a speech by Malcolm Gladwell (an author and writer for the New Yorker) about two individuals who solved impossible problems. (One deciphered Linear B and the other solved Fermat's theorem.)

Gladwell discusses the methods the two geniuses use to crack their puzzles, and comes up with some interesting things. I've never heard of the 10,000 hours theory to achieve mastery of any given subject. He also postulates that 13 smart guys might be a more effective problem solving team than a single genius.

It's 40 minutes, but I think it's a very good watch. Take a look.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/gladwell

~~~What do you think is worth spending 10,000 hours on?~~~

*

P.S. I wasn't really sure where to put this one, so I figured here's as good as anywhere else.
​

Mastery is a different animal then genius. I think practice can only take you so far before you need some baseline level of"smarts" to take you to the next level.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

hopeful monster, you should watch the video before you comment. You'll see that the whole topic is covered pretty well, and your objection is kind of... meaningless.

I'm not sure what I would spend 10,000 hours on. Biochemistry, I suppose... but I kind of want to find an end-goal to funnel my practice towards.

I'd also like to become a master in Go. Fantastic game.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

hopeful monster, you should watch the video before you comment. You'll see that the whole topic is covered pretty well, and your objection is kind of... meaningless.

I'm not sure what I would spend 10,000 hours on. Biochemistry, I suppose... but I kind of want to find an end-goal to funnel my practice towards.

I'd also like to become a master in Go. Fantastic game.

Go is a very fun game. We could perhaps play online in the future.

 

[Gorgrim]

I might have put 3000 hours into DotA (Defense of the Ancients, Warcraft III)

I suspect that many some professional players have 4000-4500, even. thus nobody has mastered it yet, which is interesting. But it appears that the last steps to mastery may be key, but a beginner starting out will rapidly start coming closer to their professional counterparts, and as they progress, they will move slower towards the professionals skill.

A pro with 10k hours, an amateur with 1000, and a medium person with 5000. The amateur will get close to the general level of a pro fast, but when he approaches 5000, the differences turn out to be in the details, and the progress towards mastery seems to become slower.

Infact, it might not go slower, it's just that the smaller parts of what mastery is, comes later, and they take longer to learn than the fundemental parts which are appearent.

I believe the timeframe makes sense. the thing that defines a genius for me would be that unstoppable drive that you end up following for understanding, and one genius could have a missing piece of the puzzle, but so could so many others. It's hard to determine if one person is able to solve a mystery alone, or needs input from others, and and how much in which fashion.

but 1 became understanding of many different languages, and another became understanding of many different math approaches.

 

[cheese]

I am a pianist, and am trying to put in 10 000 hours there. I've heard of this theory, and I know it would give me the minimum level of technical mastery of the instrument, but it'd only get my foot in the door, really. The piano world is over-saturated. Too much competition.

The 13 vs 1 probably applies to some extent here as well, though it might not be immediately apparent. Even with something that seems as subjective as musical interpretation it's important to listen to as many of the "greats", and even the lesser ones, for true appreciation of a piece's nuances and of the possibilities of music in general.

I haven't actually watched the video! My internet is very slow at the moment.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

I'm watching the video currrently and it is very interesting.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

If you do the math on it- 10,000 hours is just a little more than five years while working a standard 40 hour week (allowing for disruptions.)

A pro with 10k hours, an amateur with 1000, and a medium person with 5000. The amateur will get close to the general level of a pro fast, but when he approaches 5000, the differences turn out to be in the details, and the progress towards mastery seems to become slower.

I don't think I actually believe it, but I once heard that intellectual breakthroughs come in a pattern based on Fibonacci. So, you would have major progress on your first attempt, then your 3rd and your 5th, 8th, 13th, 21st, 34th and so on... Actually, the example I heard only went up to 8 - and thinking about it more I'm almost certain it's false - but I do agree with the general trend. Slower refinement as you get close to mastery.

I'm inferring from the video, but I think the two men he studies first invested the time to solidly learn their field, and then went to devote an additional 10,000 hours to a single impossible problem. It raises the bar a little bit.

I think it's interesting, though, to imagine that lasting world fame for an achievement is possible merely through the correct use of 10 years.
​

 

[FacetiousPersona]

If you do the math on it- 10,000 hours is just a little more than five years while working a standard 40 hour week (allowing for disruptions.)



I don't think I actually believe it, but I once heard that intellectual breakthroughs come in a pattern based on Fibonacci. So, you would have major progress on your first attempt, then your 3rd and your 5th, 8th, 13th, 21st, 34th and so on... Actually, the example I heard only went up to 8 - and thinking about it more I'm almost certain it's false - but I do agree with the general trend. Slower refinement as you get close to mastery.

I'm inferring from the video, but I think the two men he studies first invested the time to solidly learn their field, and then went to devote an additional 10,000 hours to a single impossible problem. It raises the bar a little bit.

I think it's interesting, though, to imagine that lasting world fame for an achievement is possible merely through the correct use of 10 years.
​

I think that the time will vary with the intellect, knowledge and resources the individual has. I acknowledge the pattern, yet I certainly think there are breakthroughs that require someone with unique intellectual capabilities. They will have to be dedicated, of course, for this intellect to be used effectively.

You could define genius based on the time it takes them to achieve the discovery or amount of others' theories/works they utilize. There will be problems that require genius and others which are suitable for collaborated efforts between intellectuals. Few geniuses, or exceedingly intelligent people, accomplish any incredible discoveries without assistance of other smart people. This assistance may be provided through book. New knowledge is typically established through the advancements of intellectuals.

 

[Madoness]

OK, I'm only at the beginning of the clip but... so far as I've seen.... even the most dumbest person I've ever seen can have thoughts that can make me amaze some times. I believe this clip is something similar to it.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

OK, I'm only at the beginning of the clip but... so far as I've seen.... even the most dumbest person I've ever seen can have thoughts that can make me amaze some times. I believe this clip is something similar to it.

I don't quite understand which way you're going here. Is that a thought about the topic, or is a comment about how funny and weird the speaker looks? (Cause he totally does...)
​

 

[Astridian]

That was an interesting video. I've heard before that it takes roughly ten years to master a given subject while reading an article online about the study of computer programming. At times it makes me wish I were more focused in my intellectual pursuits.

The idea of the lone genius, working in intellectual isolation for years and years admittedly appeals to my dreams of grandeur, but I find the kind of work that Andrew Wiles did to be appealing as well. It reminds me of that quote from Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants". That seems to capture an important kind of humility and a recognition that many of the things we try to figure out have already been thought about by those who came before.

While somewhat tangential to the point of this thread, this video reminded me of a documentary on the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem that I saw a while back. For those who are interested, here is a link to part one (of five): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiGOxGEbaik

Links to the other four parts are at the bottom of the expanded description on the side of the video.

 

[Madoness]

I don't quite understand which way you're going here. Is that a thought about the topic, or is a comment about how funny and weird the speaker looks? (Cause he totally does...)
​

Uhmm.... no.... as I was just starting to watch the clip, I had some ideas where the topic may go, as later on, found out... misjudged the outcome he talked about but did not edit my comment to something different.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

Uhmm.... no.... as I was just starting to watch the clip, I had some ideas where the topic may go, as later on, found out... misjudged the outcome he talked about but did not edit my comment to something different.

Sure. So, what did you think about it in the end?

​

 

[snafupants]

I would endeavor to spend 10,000 hours delving into consciousness through meditation. I think I lack the time, energy, and motivation though. Oh well, story of my F-N life.

 

[zxc]

I didn't watch the video, as I think I've encountered stuff which covers most of this. The 10k hours for expertise thing is fairly well known, and incidentally I've done about 3,500 hours of the game CSS (counter strike source) since 2005, though I don't play anymore as I think it's a ridiculously boring game. However, if you combine all my total fps game hours, I'm probably approaching 10k hours in total. And I think it shows :P, though I can barely imagine reaching the level of rapha, cypher etc.

In my music psychology lectures, we covered a segment on musical genius. The lecturer was of the opinion that the musical genius e.g. Mozart becomes so entirely of their own doing / environment (closely related in psychology these days). I'm not so sure, as I'm convinced that genetics must play some role. 'Expertise' is completely arbitrary anyway. 10,000 hours is too neat a number for me to find likely either, but of course it's not meant to be precise.

I'm an expert sleeper already, about 7 times the req hrs. Hey we're living experts too! Most of us :P

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm an expert sleeper already, about 7 times the req hrs. Hey we're living experts too! Most of us :P

I'm not impressed. Living experts have a 100% fatality rate in the end -- some "experts" we are!

 

[zxc]

Oh I forgot to mention - the book The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki is relevant to the topic of 13 smart guys vs 1 genius. It argues quite convincingly that wise crowds are a whole lot better than one or two geniuses.

 

[KazeCraven]

Bah, I feel like I'm wasting my time whenever I reply to really old threads like this.

But, I do think that there is a place for both. A group seems to be best for general problem solving, but what about creation? Especially art, where it seems that collaboration is only minimally useful in creating something great. Of course, the expression of the work may require multiple people (i.e. music or architecture), but that's beside the point. Also, though we can't track the lives of Socrates or Plato, I suspect that they were lone geniuses.

That being said, what with today's world of everyone using everyone else's ideas, I agree that 10 heads are better than 1.

10,000 hours? I guess I'll devote that to some monumental, yet promising, question about the nature of the mind. Cognitive science is full of difficult questions, and I don't think there are a whole lot of people devoting their lives to it, relatively speaking.

 

[underflow]

After watching the video, I wonder, what should society do about "old-style" geniuses (like me ?

I have those unexplainable flashes of inspiration and I can't sit still for 10k hours. Is my only hope that one of those flashes of inspiration will result in a machine that can take me to a time when I was needed? Or do I resign myself to the fact that I'm behind my time? :P

@KazeCraven: what if art isn't my thing?

And agree with you - there is a place for both. I think it's unfair to bill one as "modern."

And what I'm getting at above (sarcastically), is that in the past, institutions of learning, and actually society in general, created controlled environments where these kinds of people could operate effectively. Some of us are great at deliberately working on problems. Some of us are potent weapons that need to be carefully aimed. A healthy mix of both makes the world go around. Unfortunately, at least in my personal experience, currently it's hard to be a weapon. It's hard to find a sharpshooter.

 

[KazeCraven]

How about philosophy? Not that anyone is going to pay you to be one unless you demonstrate that you are a genius philosopher, though I suppose that's not a good one either (due to how one must go about showing such a thing).

In today's society, chances are if you come up with something that someone has already come up with it or it is useless. If you can find a problem that no one's been able to crack, perhaps you can try playing with one of those?

Is science your thing? You can do what Einstein did: read physics a lot, use your genius to synthesize theories and discover logical holes, have an insight, become world famous. I don't think (I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt) that your genius is truly overlooked in this era. You just have to play the game until you can change the game.

 

[underflow]

Actually I was calling myself a genius jokingly. Everyone has abilities of varying degree. Some may have extreme abilities in certain areas and we may label those people "geniuses." I dislike the label, and think it just serves to divide people.

Hmm, it might be philosophy, science, art or music. Part of the problem is that we cannot recognize what our "thing" is until we encounter it. I think that we all have certain frameworks in our heads and when something in real life "clicks" with one of those frameworks, "eureka!" What do you think?

You are right - it is very hard to find something that someone hasn't already cracked. I am sure that there are endless examples of us "cracking" things that were cracked ages ago, because the original solution wasn't recorded or got lost over time.

I think my strengths lie in finding methods to solve problems in a better way/more efficiently than previous methods. A lot of times at my regular job, I will purposely complicate things to exercise my mind in this way. It keeps me satisfied to some degree. That and whatever puzzles I can get my hands on.

Yup, that's EXACTLY what my dad keeps telling me - play the game until you can change it. I am basically throwing a tantrum over the fact that I can't change the game RIGHT NOW! *throws himself on the floor, bawling*

I would like to see our society put more effort into fostering people who want to and can change the game in a positive way. That to me would be a positive evolution of society. Is this wishful thinking?

 

[KazeCraven]

I think that our "thing" is something that we can like coupled with usage of our most developed "intelligence." By that, I mean that there are certain abilities that we are either naturally good with or naturally inclined to develop. For example, I have high computational (not necessarily mathematical) intelligence. I caught onto arithmetic pretty quick, and could calculate such things easily. Now programming uses the same ability (though not exclusively) so I'm good at that. Also, anytime I apply such ability to other things, it seems to come out much easier. Thus my "thing" is anything that I enjoy enough to fully apply my ability to that.

However, I do think the framework-framework interaction idea is getting at something. I think this may be the best explanation for someone who decides at the age of 10 to go work on solving the AI problem, or something like that. Would have to think more about it.

As for our society promoting people who want to change things, there are too many agendas going around for us to decide on what's "positive." I think the main barrier to it is moral relativity (my latest nemesis). If we can ever discard that paradigm, I think so, but I doubt we can.

 

[lalaguide]

super article , impressed and it changed my way of thinking