|
|
|
|
|
|
by jezclaremurugan
3719 days ago
|
|
|
Not saying you are entirely wrong, but maybe that article isn't totally off either. For ex.
> You know who built Google?
People who weren't working in Yahoo or AltaVista. > Who built Microsoft?
Again outsiders out of the Unix or IBM world. Further, while basketball matches are not same, the skill part - shooting/dribbling/tackling etc. is definitely same. I am not arguing against expertise though - I know how critical a proper knowledge of algorithms and data structures is to programming. What I am saying is that while expertise is important - creativity is fundamentally different from expertise. However you do need expertise to be creative, I have no dreams of making any discoveries in quantum physics any time soon. |
|
|
It was not people trying random shit either. It was a pair of PhD students, who were already experts in how information is indexed in libraries, and who understood how citations work in academia, who applied this knowledge to the novel domain of crawling the WWW.
If you look at the biographies of really creative people, you will see a pattern emerging. Practically all the grand masters of the Reinassense specialized in a single art, but dabbled with 2 or 3 more (i.e. Michel Angelo's magna opus is the Sistine Chappel, but he was a master sculptor and a moderately competent architect). Many fiction writers do start their careers as journaists. Great hackers have a tendency to pick up hobbies that have little or nothing to do with computers.
Maybe the problem with the 10-thousand hours is not that it kills creativity, but that people gets obsessed about a single topic and do not try their hand at enough different things for their creativity to flourish.