I'm a 21 year old that goes to your regular, univy league college, the University of San Francisco. I would say drive, and the willingness to dream (and take risks) is almost dead among your average Americans who HAVE the skill and talent to develop science and technology.
I've had discussions with my co-Founder about this (we're applying for YC this summer). We believe the American dream has morphed. Everyone is scared in our generation. We're scared of not getting jobs, of not living the cushy lives we thought would be handed to us as kids.
Now, our generation is more than happy to settle for a shitty internship, to settle for ok, to settle for "getting by". It's because we're scared. Scared of what our future holds for us (which no one really knows haha).
Of course, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking about the high school and college segment as a whole. These are my opinions from what I see in talented people I know.
So poetry is mentioned in the article quite prominently, and I think I know a little bit about it, so I'd just like to point out a few confounding factors.
1. Many great poets (Keats, Shelley, Byron, Sylvia Plath, etc) died at a young age. Not only did that limit their output at a later age, the resulting aura around death at young ages contributed to their reputation.
2. Other great writers (Shakespeare, Joyce) wrote poetry when they were young, and moved to writing longer works in slightly different forms as they got older. Their later works are even more acclaimed, and are actually "poetic" if not exactly poetry.
There are many, many poets who are critically acclaimed and wrote their best work much later in life. I think point (1) must have dominated this person's research, and makes me suspect his overall point.
I suspect similar factors come into play in science - for example, great scientists most likely end up in administrative positions where they supervisie and mentor younger scientists who write the papers.
For every scientist who innovated while young, there is another whose major contribution came later in life.
Looking at it a different way, one could argue that scientists who are known primarily for work done at a young age just rested on their laurels after this early success.
sure, if we're talking about "science" exclusively as that which is funded directly by government. this field has slowly morphed into revolving around the grant approval process rather than interesting research. it's the old patron-artist relationship. you're going to get art that the patron likes.
Let me ask a very honest question: what does one actually have to gain, personally, from making a fundamental contribution to physics? Consider that it takes at least a decade for prizes to be distributed. So at best, you are looking at a cushy professorship at a nice University for your efforts, and maybe - if you are lucky - in your forties someone will send you a plaque and a modest check for your efforts.
Wouldn't any rational young man prefer something a little more tangible for a decade of his youth? Especially given the accessibility of such rewards in other fields?
Hence the fundamental issue addressed in the article is not actually addressed at all: the young and brilliant are simply not interested - and for good reason (IMHO).
Let me add one more thing. Compared to a century ago, the young physicist has much more to learn before he even has the knowledge to make fundamental contributions, hence the prospects starting out are much more daunting.
A lot of science nowadays is data collection and crunching. The reductionist viewpoint of finding "laws" is over, The complexity of biology, which is the majority of science today, is too great for humans to even attempt to fathom.
In this age of computation government funding with grants, with all the inefficiencies and politics, is a waste of money and a drain on the talents of many of the brightest individuals in society.
The current model should be ditched and replaced by the netflix prize or darpa grand challenge model. Only then will real progress be made.
7 comments
[ 37.6 ms ] story [ 607 ms ] threadI'm a 21 year old that goes to your regular, univy league college, the University of San Francisco. I would say drive, and the willingness to dream (and take risks) is almost dead among your average Americans who HAVE the skill and talent to develop science and technology.
I've had discussions with my co-Founder about this (we're applying for YC this summer). We believe the American dream has morphed. Everyone is scared in our generation. We're scared of not getting jobs, of not living the cushy lives we thought would be handed to us as kids.
Now, our generation is more than happy to settle for a shitty internship, to settle for ok, to settle for "getting by". It's because we're scared. Scared of what our future holds for us (which no one really knows haha).
Of course, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking about the high school and college segment as a whole. These are my opinions from what I see in talented people I know.
1. Many great poets (Keats, Shelley, Byron, Sylvia Plath, etc) died at a young age. Not only did that limit their output at a later age, the resulting aura around death at young ages contributed to their reputation.
2. Other great writers (Shakespeare, Joyce) wrote poetry when they were young, and moved to writing longer works in slightly different forms as they got older. Their later works are even more acclaimed, and are actually "poetic" if not exactly poetry.
There are many, many poets who are critically acclaimed and wrote their best work much later in life. I think point (1) must have dominated this person's research, and makes me suspect his overall point.
I suspect similar factors come into play in science - for example, great scientists most likely end up in administrative positions where they supervisie and mentor younger scientists who write the papers.
Looking at it a different way, one could argue that scientists who are known primarily for work done at a young age just rested on their laurels after this early success.
Let me ask a very honest question: what does one actually have to gain, personally, from making a fundamental contribution to physics? Consider that it takes at least a decade for prizes to be distributed. So at best, you are looking at a cushy professorship at a nice University for your efforts, and maybe - if you are lucky - in your forties someone will send you a plaque and a modest check for your efforts.
Wouldn't any rational young man prefer something a little more tangible for a decade of his youth? Especially given the accessibility of such rewards in other fields?
Hence the fundamental issue addressed in the article is not actually addressed at all: the young and brilliant are simply not interested - and for good reason (IMHO).
Let me add one more thing. Compared to a century ago, the young physicist has much more to learn before he even has the knowledge to make fundamental contributions, hence the prospects starting out are much more daunting.
In this age of computation government funding with grants, with all the inefficiencies and politics, is a waste of money and a drain on the talents of many of the brightest individuals in society.
The current model should be ditched and replaced by the netflix prize or darpa grand challenge model. Only then will real progress be made.