|
I would strongly suggest that you read the biography of Erwin Schrodinger. Empirically, it seems to be quite possible to pick up mathematics and science at a later stage. But it doesn't happen too often. I cannot tell if this has to do with society's influence (there are many pressures keeping people from switching fields) or something to do with natural talent. But I do think that success in science, mathematics, or really, anywhere, is much more a product of your habits, discipline, environment, and beliefs than is ordinarily given credit. I don't think 'nature', or 'very early nurture' is unimportant -- for example, it can play a very important role in the sorts of things you get interested in and the preferences, beliefs and skills you acquire. But conditioned on having the same beliefs, habits, and discipline as masterful scientists, business people, or researchers, if you're talking about great contributions, I think the other dimensions of talent truly shrink into irrelevance. Three terrific links: Michael Nielsen on Extreme Thinking. http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=19 (Edit: Whoops! Michael, the link is broken! Here's an archived version, http://web.archive.org/web/20061018164649/http://www.qinfo.o... ) Terry Tao's Career Advice: http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/ And the classic, Richard Hamming, You and Your Research: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html |
Both. Those with natural talent are more likely to produce notable work at an earlier age. Likewise, for male scientists, testosterone seems to drive creativity, and in later ages that has a tendency to get channeled into marriage and family instead (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1149615.e...).