|
|
|
|
|
|
by dan-gittik
1492 days ago
|
|
|
Thanks for the contribution, and the assumption that one afterthought by you would probably be more valuable than a stupid video.
If you'd actually watch it, you'll see it addresses exactly what you said, and why it's wrong: the good parts come from collaboration, happen simultaneously in different places by different people, and the "success" you see certain "brilliant" people achieving is mostly in stomping out the competition for an idea that was never really theirs (not to belittle them or anything, simply because almost all of it relies on accumulating human knowledge). And if you think competition is the only way, there's a stupid video about that as well. Essays are coming, by the way, they just require some formatting and references. Believe it or not, many people prefer to see a person talk to them than to skin through long texts on the internet. |
|
|
> the good parts come from collaboration, happen simultaneously in different places by different people
Particularly looking to see what arguments back this claim. Again, not interested in spending 25 minutes milking it out of this video. But my apologies for calling it stupid. That was uncalled for & based only on my personal preference of text over video/audio argumentation.
I was pretty polarizing last night. I can think of a number of anecdotes as counter-example to my own claim, where a rough general idea, not anything particularly insightful, was slowly worked by the group into excellence. But I also still think there's a ton of ideas that spring from the mind that change things radically, that reshape the scene, and these are not community wins.
All ideas ultimately must make it through the long gauntlet of development & refinement, which is typically more collective. Although we have counterexamples here too: Jobs, as the Chief "No" officer, with unrelenting tastes where most companies would accept what they'd done.
I guess mostly I think it's a futile attempt to argue one way or the other. It really depends. I think we overrate the likelihood/impact/probability of great men, but on the other hand, I absolutely think some individuals have times & places & roles & really are responsible for vast things. I've seen so many small examples where an individual's push for excellence makes such a significant difference in the world, and to try to argue definitively that only the collective matters seems bunk. I think we have to start by admitting a spectrum, & rejecting absolutes.