> I am so very weary of this nonsense being taken seriously as sage advice.
Agreed.
In fact, in the featured article, the author makes reference to the hard science achievement of Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA as follows.
> And moreover it's clear from the story that Crick and Watson's fierce nerdiness was integral to their success. Their independent-mindedness caused them to consider approaches that most others ignored, their overconfidence allowed them to work on problems they only half understood (they were literally described as "clowns" by one eminent insider), and their impatience and competitiveness got them to the answer ahead of two other groups that would otherwise have found it within the next year, if not the next several months.
Pointing to this as an example of fierceness producing contrarian success completely ignores the sheer amount of luck that contributed to the timing of Watson and Crick's discovery. Given a different roll of the experimental dice, Watson and Crick's method might have had temporary setbacks that resulted in their names being relegated to footnotes.
As luck and effort would have it, two of the most ornery scientists of the twentieth century will figure as pioneers in the annals of science history.
Agreed.
In fact, in the featured article, the author makes reference to the hard science achievement of Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA as follows.
> And moreover it's clear from the story that Crick and Watson's fierce nerdiness was integral to their success. Their independent-mindedness caused them to consider approaches that most others ignored, their overconfidence allowed them to work on problems they only half understood (they were literally described as "clowns" by one eminent insider), and their impatience and competitiveness got them to the answer ahead of two other groups that would otherwise have found it within the next year, if not the next several months.
Pointing to this as an example of fierceness producing contrarian success completely ignores the sheer amount of luck that contributed to the timing of Watson and Crick's discovery. Given a different roll of the experimental dice, Watson and Crick's method might have had temporary setbacks that resulted in their names being relegated to footnotes.
As luck and effort would have it, two of the most ornery scientists of the twentieth century will figure as pioneers in the annals of science history.