[kem]

I agree about what you see as the biggest problem with the "lone genius" myth, but the myth itself is so insidious to me, with so many facets, that volumes more could be said about it.

I agree with the OP that the article isn't as cogent as it could be, but it touches on a lot of problems with the myth, and I agree with its general argument.

People seem to have difficulty with the idea that just because ability and discipline are necessary to success in creative endeavors like science, doesn't mean that they're sufficient, and that a lot of other factors come into play, many outside the individual. There's also factors like the discipline of interest--some are undoubtedly much more difficult to make progress in at any given moment in time. I suspect you could take the most intelligent, conscientious, persistent individual on earth, and if you set them to task with certain problems, no one would hear of them because of the difficulties involved. You might argue that choosing the right task is part of the problem, but is that really the best argument? Do we wait until all the problems of chemistry are resolved before moving on to biology, etc.?

Sometimes I feel like society succumbs to surviviorship bias because the alternative is too bleak. We're willing to defensively ignore the problems with it because to do otherwise is to face the capricious reality of chance and society.