|
The problem was challenging.
The solution was exceptional.
So, maybe something about the
person who solved the problem
might be exceptional, that is,
might fail to fit some
common patterns? Or, in this case, we can't call
the success luck. So, for
considering what is likely to be
the situation
or characteristics of the
person with such an exceptional
success, where are we to look?
Are we to look at the dozens
of people we do know or the
thousands of other people, all
of whom tried but failed to have
such exceptional success? So, we didn't see him at an
AMS conference; he's not a
full professor at a top
university; he doesn't have
a wife, 2.5 children, a
3 bedroom, two bath house,
and two late model cars;
...? So? If we hear a claim of some
astounding accomplishment, then
maybe (A) the accomplishment
is nonsense and the person is
exceptional because they are
a crackpot or (B) the accomplishment
is terrific and the person is
exceptional because they were
very successful. So, with
either (A) or (B) we stand
to see things exceptional
that don't fit common patterns. Net, if really want to look for
the very best accomplishments,
then we shouldn't reject people who
look exceptional, that is,
don't fit some patterns we learned
from people who haven't had
some terrific accomplishments. And, in this thinking, we have to
notice, in business there can be
essentially some very good luck
but not in pure mathematics
complete with theorems and proofs
that can be checked with high
reliability. That is,
in business, people who
are not very exceptional
and do fit common patterns
can still be very successful
because of essentially luck;
so, in business can find people
who fit nearly any common
pattern and also are exceptionally
successful just because of luck;
can't do that in pure math
there luck doesn't work! |