An interesting pattern recurs across the career of great scientists: an annus mirabilis (miracle year) in which they make multiple, seemingly independent breakthroughs in the span of a single year or two. Einstein had his annus mirabilis in 1905. While he was still a patent clerk, he wrote four papers that revolutionized our understanding of the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and special relativity.
I've literally been trying to create a fund that can deploy relatively small amounts to allow people to get at least a whole year for their "miracle year" but in cost effective places to arbitrage those costs. This is relatively startup oriented but .maybe one day it doesn't have to be
My miracle year was 1967-1968, when essentially all of the ideas I would be working on for the rest of my life, had their genesis. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TMMLDNF
Kahneman's collaborator, Amos Tversky, expounded the virtues of being “gainfully underemployed”. This might contribute to the conditions under which an annus mirabilis can occur in our modern world, given the kinds of things many a white-collar job entail.
Interesting thoughts. I do feel along with an annus mirabilis there is also a "the period in which you make it big", which according to me comes up when you're in your 40s. This is essentially the peak of what you achieve and when you reap the benefits from all that you sow. Starts from Einstein to current big tech CEOs.
One important distinction is between discovery being made and productivity. If Darwin is dilligently taking notes and thinking for years prior to his miracle year, the only interesting thing about the miracle year might be something regarding time of publication, rather that him being particularly productive at that time.
I think that this is largely the effect of selection bias. We can find examples of people that confirm the hypothsis. There are also examples of people who are counter examples. You provided an example of a writer. Take the counter-example of some of the most successful writers; JK Rowlings has written multiple extremely successfuly books across many years and the same with Stephen King. You have interviewed Charles Murray; he's had very important social science books with many years inbetween. He was also much older when he started writing. Again, a single counter-example is little evidence but similarly, a few examples are little evidence as well.
While you talk about importance, the Yair and Goldstein (2020) study seems to be looking at number of publications and ignoring their impact (see footnote 1). This might be an important distinction to make. It's less interesting to say that "For one year in a persons career, they will publish 3x their average." I didn't read the article; correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
Well-written -- but I would ask this: what about people like Euler or Gauss? Euler in particular is known to have doubled his output despite being blind in his later years -- and him, along with Guass, rank as some of the greatest mathematicians. So how do you explain people like Euler who actually had more pioneering discoveries later in his life? Look at his Wikipedia page -- what he did is simply astonishing. Same deal with Gauss -- although I'm of the personal opinion Euler is greater, as even the great Gauss said, "The study of Euler's works will remain the best school for the different fields of mathematics, and nothing else can replace it."
I mention this because some people might be tempted to believe that unless you're in your 20s, you can't do anything particularly revolutionary or groundbreaking -- and Euler and Gauss both prove this wrong. You can argue they're outliers -- but so are people who make revolutionary discoveries in general, so I think if we balance this observation that if the most prolific mathematicians made some of their most pioneering work later in life, then so can others who happen to belong to the upper tier. Thoughts?
Great writing. Made me think about how to stimulate more miracle years.
Some thoughts. If it was mainly obligations building up, you would expect to see academics doing amazing things in their sabbatical year, kids going off to college, post-divorce, retirement, summers, etc. I would expect that period to be even more productive. Because you have had the buildup of 10+ years of ideas, experience, relationships, capital, etc. And it should just explode in the sabbatical. You see that a bit in the business world, when an insider likes Eric Yuan leaves all the obligations or corporate structures of a WebEx to found a startup like Zoom. Or Tony Fadell to found Nest. Anecdotally, I don't see it in academia, perhaps because it is higher G-loaded and G has decayed by the time they reach sabbatical.
Really enjoyed reading this, Dwarkesh! I think it's mainly the curiosity factor(mixed with intelligence and knowledge). I wonder what we would find if we looked at what happened immediately prior to people's greatest accomplishments at any point in life. Maybe they just had a child and was seeing the world through a new lens, hallucinogens, some other eye opening experience, etc. Maybe it's not the age but that they're seeing the world through brand new, sparkling clean lenses.
The mystery of the miracle year
I've literally been trying to create a fund that can deploy relatively small amounts to allow people to get at least a whole year for their "miracle year" but in cost effective places to arbitrage those costs. This is relatively startup oriented but .maybe one day it doesn't have to be
My miracle year was 1967-1968, when essentially all of the ideas I would be working on for the rest of my life, had their genesis. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TMMLDNF
Kahneman's collaborator, Amos Tversky, expounded the virtues of being “gainfully underemployed”. This might contribute to the conditions under which an annus mirabilis can occur in our modern world, given the kinds of things many a white-collar job entail.
Interesting thoughts. I do feel along with an annus mirabilis there is also a "the period in which you make it big", which according to me comes up when you're in your 40s. This is essentially the peak of what you achieve and when you reap the benefits from all that you sow. Starts from Einstein to current big tech CEOs.
Lmk what you think!
One important distinction is between discovery being made and productivity. If Darwin is dilligently taking notes and thinking for years prior to his miracle year, the only interesting thing about the miracle year might be something regarding time of publication, rather that him being particularly productive at that time.
I think that this is largely the effect of selection bias. We can find examples of people that confirm the hypothsis. There are also examples of people who are counter examples. You provided an example of a writer. Take the counter-example of some of the most successful writers; JK Rowlings has written multiple extremely successfuly books across many years and the same with Stephen King. You have interviewed Charles Murray; he's had very important social science books with many years inbetween. He was also much older when he started writing. Again, a single counter-example is little evidence but similarly, a few examples are little evidence as well.
While you talk about importance, the Yair and Goldstein (2020) study seems to be looking at number of publications and ignoring their impact (see footnote 1). This might be an important distinction to make. It's less interesting to say that "For one year in a persons career, they will publish 3x their average." I didn't read the article; correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
Just some points. Keep writing! :)
Well-written -- but I would ask this: what about people like Euler or Gauss? Euler in particular is known to have doubled his output despite being blind in his later years -- and him, along with Guass, rank as some of the greatest mathematicians. So how do you explain people like Euler who actually had more pioneering discoveries later in his life? Look at his Wikipedia page -- what he did is simply astonishing. Same deal with Gauss -- although I'm of the personal opinion Euler is greater, as even the great Gauss said, "The study of Euler's works will remain the best school for the different fields of mathematics, and nothing else can replace it."
I mention this because some people might be tempted to believe that unless you're in your 20s, you can't do anything particularly revolutionary or groundbreaking -- and Euler and Gauss both prove this wrong. You can argue they're outliers -- but so are people who make revolutionary discoveries in general, so I think if we balance this observation that if the most prolific mathematicians made some of their most pioneering work later in life, then so can others who happen to belong to the upper tier. Thoughts?
Great article! I think that those destined to have a miracle year make it possible.
Steve Jobs did drop out of college. An Newton chose to go on an expedition.
Perhaps Newton would still have worked on his ideas even if he was never sent home.
Great writing. Made me think about how to stimulate more miracle years.
Some thoughts. If it was mainly obligations building up, you would expect to see academics doing amazing things in their sabbatical year, kids going off to college, post-divorce, retirement, summers, etc. I would expect that period to be even more productive. Because you have had the buildup of 10+ years of ideas, experience, relationships, capital, etc. And it should just explode in the sabbatical. You see that a bit in the business world, when an insider likes Eric Yuan leaves all the obligations or corporate structures of a WebEx to found a startup like Zoom. Or Tony Fadell to found Nest. Anecdotally, I don't see it in academia, perhaps because it is higher G-loaded and G has decayed by the time they reach sabbatical.
Really enjoyed reading this, Dwarkesh! I think it's mainly the curiosity factor(mixed with intelligence and knowledge). I wonder what we would find if we looked at what happened immediately prior to people's greatest accomplishments at any point in life. Maybe they just had a child and was seeing the world through a new lens, hallucinogens, some other eye opening experience, etc. Maybe it's not the age but that they're seeing the world through brand new, sparkling clean lenses.