I say this to reinforce Paul's statement, "But that's because we know how things turned out." "How things turned out" includes reclassification of what he was working out as belonging to different fields. I suspect that at the time, he didn't consider himself to be moving from one field to another but rather to trying to build upon his previous work.
Good ideas tend to split & bifurcate, until the original term is considered simply common sense and the parts people care about are individual subfields that were trivial when they started. Recall that "industry" used to refer to anything that was mass-produced in a factory, which, back in the 1820s, basically meant textiles. As the general techniques proved their worth, "industry" split into subfields, such that we got the "oil industry" and "steel industry" and "auto industry" and "aviation industry" and so on.
I think a similar process is happening with software, where the "software industry" is bifurcating into embedded software, social software, payment software, etc, much of it in support of an existing industry; "software is eating the world". I suspect that we're in the very early phases of this. In the early history of the industrial revolution, most industries were ways to produce existing goods (clothing, iron, tobacco, energy) dramatically more efficiently, much like how much software today is embedded in old-line industries' line-of-business apps. But starting around 1900, you started getting industries (electricity, aviation, pharmaceuticals) that were largely unrecognizable compared to their substitutes. You're seeing the very beginning of that now with specifically Internet- and cloud-based industries, but it likely has another century to go.
This is the kind of thoughtful comment I come here for - it's given me some ideas to go research on my own.
For a modern viewpoint it might seem like Newton was "hedging his bets" by contributing to several totally different fields, but I don't think it was seen like that at the time. It was all "philosophy".
Other "philosophers" in the early modern period had similar interests. For example Tycho Brahe is remembered as an astronomer with a strong focus on empirical observation, but actually was just as focused on astrology, alchemy and medicine (which was connected to alchemy and astronomy because of the same philosophy).
Newton was a "renaissance man".
Other than hydrogen, some helium, and a very small amount of lithium, all other elements were born of stars, through either normal fusion (helium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, ...), supernovae (heavier atoms: nickle, iron, ...), and for the heaviest including gold, neutron-star collisions.
No, the models assumed by alchemists weren't right, but the central nugget was pointing in the right direction. And studying the metals does provide insight into the dynamics of stars.
(And yes: on Earth, helium and several other elements are found not formed by stars directly, but through the radioactive decay of heavier elements, though those are of stellar origins.)
For more thinking in a similar direction, see Nassim Taleb's excerpt on the Lindy effect (https://medium.com/incerto/an-expert-called-lindy-fdb30f146e...), where he elaborates on the connection between risk and survival of ideas.
Some of my favorite books of all time were Taleb's, but I have to say, his writing is the perfect demonstration of power law. 10℅ of his content is remarkably insightful and the remaining 90℅ is unadulterated bullshit.
I wonder if that explains why his first 3 books where so much better than what he has written since....
In addition, It's not too infrequent that you'll find another scientist who wrote about the same thing 30 years earlier, or in Newton's case with Leibniz, concurrent.
Rarely do we take a big view of the species, a creature that has been alive and thinking much longer than us, winding its way through time.
I don't know why he left them out -- I guess he knew it'd be controversial.
Anyways, why shouldn't founders/hackers reach for such heights? But if I didn't know Paul Graham's background, I wouldn't assume that's what this essay infers. Rather, the essay doesn't say anything directly about startups.
I'm curious what's scummy about them to you?
I suspect that the personality trait most closely associated with creativity like this is a lack of fear of embarrassment. When someone tells me something I have suggested is wrong I respond by asking questions to understand how they understand the topic so that I can learn from them. When you tell someone who has vested their self image in being right that they are wrong they take it personally and respond dismissively. They fight to have their point of view validated rather than understand a counter point of view. But this makes them unwilling to share partially understood topics because it could expose them to being 'wrong' in public.
Other times people self censor their own thinking. I get so frustrated when someone says "Well I thought that might be a solution to the problem but assumed it would be too expensive." That is an example of someone who had a creative idea, self censored it, and it had to come out through someone else in order to reach the collective consciousness of the group. I try really hard to have people not self censor but it is so ingrained sometimes.
And all of that then feeds back into the genius/hero narrative where the narrative of a person includes only their noteworthy accomplishments and so the perception is that people like that only do noteworthy things, and then they are impossible to live up to.
Dare to ask stupid questions, it could make you the smartest person in the room.
I think there are actually very few people who would take such a risk, even though I think it's a necessary risk if you want to be part of "huge, if true."
I beg to differ - we will never know the number of people who take such risks due to survivorship bias. I have a hunch that a lot of people through the ages took risks that never paid off and they never got famous, instead, they bankrupted themselves, got committed into asylums or lived their days in anonymity. No one writes biographies about them, if they did, no one would want to read them.
> dare to spend years of your life grinding away (in relative isolation) on something that seems crazy, with no guarantee of any success, but full of promise.
If I were to come up with a VC creed, it would probably be very close to this. Distill it down to concise Latin and you got yourself a bona fide VC Firm motto.
It cost me a year (1/90th of my life? 1/75th? 1/50th? less?) to realize this. From what I understand, I'm far from alone -- and basically every career path risks this cost.
Emphasizing this nugget of truth by placing it at the bottom of your post is commendable.
Well darn it, that's how we were taught in engineering school.
I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). Alchemy is obviously a waste of time -- I won't dispute that, and I suspect that "most people" would agree with that assertion.
Being that pg is an atheist, I would expect him to personally believe that the study of theology is a waste of time. However, even just taking Christian theology into account, given that over 100 million Bibles are sold or given away in the world every year (https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-copies-bible-sold-...), and the Bible continues to be "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world.", the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.
Again, this is just the impression I got from reading the essay. I would be happy to have pg respond and let me know if my impression was incorrect.
(edited to remove unintentional indenting)
Alchemy as well was not so ridiculous as people seem to think. Modern hatred for alchemy seems more like a way of patting ourselves on the back and saying "We're so smart! Good thing we don't believe in that nonsense like those benighted fools hundreds of years ago." But in reality alchemy was a pre-scientific attempt at understanding the world which, if I understand correctly, merged more or less directly into what we no consider science.
It seems to me that the two things PG dismissed completely in his article are in fact the foundations upon which our modern world is largely built. There's more to the world than physics...even if physics is, in a sense, all there is.
I think it's fair to say that Newton's work on it was a bet that paid off poorly.
I think "us" refers to the readers. Ie the kind of person likely to be reading an essay of his
^ I never said "popularity of belief" in any way implies the correctness of belief. I could find and list many popular beliefs that I am certain are blatantly false.
I merely pointed out that the essay seems (to me) to imply that "most people" in the world discount the study of theology as "crazy" and "a waste of time". The reference to the popularity of the Bible ( as "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world." ) was in support of my assertion that the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.
And I was not addressing whether people think that studying the Bible advances technology/science, but whether people think that studying theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time".
Some of those people become fantastically rich as a result of the one right thing.
Just because someone is wildly successful and right about one non-consensus bet, doesn't mean they aren't wrong about most of their other beliefs.
The occasional out-of-the-mainstream idea is a revolution, but the vast majority are just nutty and wrong.
It's pretty interesting that pg describes the possible outcomes of contrarian ideas as either positive for society or merely a waste of time. Even though the pursuit of risky and contrarian ideas can also be hugely harmful for society.
I've lot so much respect for YC wrt Thiel. Trump is such an obvious villain that if you're not against him you're an enabler. I don't care that he's become normalized in the American and Russian press the rest of the world is laughing at the USA and crying inside. We're slowly finding out which people are actually committed to their ideals and which are just interested in being more powerful, even if it comes at the cost of allowing a total maniac to the nuclear throne.
Peter Thiel isn't like Haber or Einstein, because most of his potentially dangerous ideas are only contrarian in our little bubble. When he challenges democracy, he's on the side of millennia of kings and queens and emperors and chieftains, as well as everyone who has ever said "if I were king for a day..."; when he manages to be the highest profile Trump supporter in the tech world, he is backed by nearly half the voters in America; when he says that a monopoly is exactly what a company should aim for, a great many CEOs and HN readers privately nod. His genuinely contrarian ideas aren't frightening, they're considered laughable, which is why the media mocks him so much for seasteading and "vampirism".
For his "weird" behavior, yeah, probably.
For some of his "other" behavior -- his support for Trump, generally; and his (very recent, and very disturbing) attemps to soft-peddle, and normalize sexual violence -- more likely it's because they lack awareness of some basic political history.
I don't think betting the house on a single event is "insane". Businesses make these all-in bets all the time and we're fine with it. Every Hollywood blockbuster is also a billion dollar all-in bet, but nobody bats an eye at that either. Individuals bet a huge percentage of their net worth when they buy a house. Yet when a person invests a large amount of their net worth in a single stock it's suddenly irresponsible? Hogwash.
The way we perceive risk in society is extraordinarily polarized. Some moderately risky behavior is considered normal, and other moderately risky behavior is deemed "insane". I don't think there is any rhyme or reason to it; just a matter of arbitrary cultural norms.
Lost lives may be merely wasted time if you take a maximally macro view of humanity. That detachment is likely comforting if you can pull it off. Me, personally though... I'm a social human being and I care about - even love - other human beings, and their lives represent far more to me than that.
The study of God and religious ideas is equivalent to the study of human nature and the significance of existence itself. This is true regardless of which belief system you care to study.
Even avoiding deep concepts usually not found in this forum, religion remains at the heart of the greatest human conflicts of the present day, and is critically central to any understanding of the largest cultural forces in the world. Yeah, what a waste of time!
It's the difference between studying Tolkien universe as art and tracing its influences on culture etc on one hand, and searching for Silmarils on the other.
You can of course argue the underlying hermetic philosophy was BS - but it was and is no better or worse than theology.
See Paul of Tarsus (a former persecutor of some of the first Christians) writing to the Corinthians circa 55 AD:
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
See Luke the physician writing to Theopilus:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
One merit of theology is the study of religious traditions and whether or not they should continue or be discouraged for various reasons, as an example.
Not only scientific pursuits have merit. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to imply with your combination of statements, but it's possible to infer that from your choice of words.
I think we can all agree that that was a waste of time. (hindsight is a wonderful thing).
Relevant smbc: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2007-12-27
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost
almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the
game winning shot and missed."
Did they all become like Michael Jordan?
Failure may be on the path to success, but failure does not guarantee success.
"FLOSS .. is better for the same reason that science is better than alchemy. Back before we had science we had alchemy, a lot like science except alchemists never told anyone else what they thought they'd learned and so they were prey to the most common human frailty which is self deception, which is how how alchemists discovered in the hardest way possible that you shouldn't drink mercury, and when alchemists started telling each other what they thought they'd learned, and subjecting themselves to adversarial peer review, and they started publishing their source they turned something base into something noble, they turned superstition into science and created the enlightenment, and FLOSS is everywhere because it continues the enlightenment tradition."
Source: [1:40 to 2:20] http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/oscon-tx/public/content...
The most you might lose is the support of friends and family if your dreams aren't fully realized. Which can be a lot, but that is why the people who have the most to lose don't try startups.
If startups are not risky enough to be irrational to get involved, are you saying then the big companies are acting irrationally when not getting involved?
That's of course a dual view. But it seems to me that the big corporation is more likely the one that calculates the correct expected ROI than the startup in the unknown space..
Newton's studies were motivated by his dislike of farming and need to revenge a bully. He got time for his most productive work because plague closed the University for two years.
----
[1]: if you are not familiar with these terms, look up definitions, because they don't mean what you think they mean.
If you agree, then how can you say both act rationally?
Why wouldn't rational people who have labor to offer, instead of joining a startup, go work for a big company? The pay is usually better I hear.
Addendum: I am sure you can explain the difference in behavior by invoking "preferences" or "utility" (which is actually meaningless in humans, cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13276760, but that aside) of monetary rewards; however, that doesn't explain why there is the difference in the first place. If some entities are rational, they should perceive the world the same way and thus have the same preferences.
So even if those guys in the garage act irrationally as individuals, someone has to take those risks, otherwise the society as a whole would be out-competed.
And that's why some people have evolved (not me :-)) to take more risks, at the personal expense.
There is no rational reason for you to live, you can - and hopefully do - want to, but that's not rationality. That's irrational humanity, or based on irrational axioms.
But, yes, history has a survivorship bias. But that's literally one of the oldest observations made. It's often said, "History is written by the victors." What PG is saying is just another version of that age-old observation.
This essay has a great core insight, and I get you don't need more words to say it, but I still miss the longer ones
I found the book super interesting in terms of explaining how innovations happen and how we talk about them in retrospect. Although it is about science, I think a lot of the thinking would apply to programming innovations too. And unlike most blog posts, there is actually some serious sociological research behind it :-).
So yes, in modern times, theology and alchemy has the same scientific value: none
I have nothing against theology as a hobby or religious pursuit, but at some point we have to say "the well is dry" and admit that there is no grounds for spending public funds on it. Specifically: the only payback we can expect lies in the student's personal religious experience.
Sure, maybe he just worked less hard on theology+chemistry, or he wasn't good at those topics, but what seems more likely is that there were no useful discoveries to be made there at the time given the tools + world context Newton had.
His theological conclusions would have been considered heresy. The penalty for heresy was the loss of all property and status and, sometimes, death.
He was indeed taking a serious risk in studying these things.
Except it was three:
- Optics
- Gravitation and mechanics
- Mathematics
There are many scientists out there who spend a lifetime on theories that turn out to be bogus, but calling it a bet is entirely missing the point.
Maybe he's referring to the bets Newton (somewhat implicitly) made by dedicating time to physics/science as well as alchemy and theology.
These are not really bets, it's all what Newton was, a man's passion, life and legacy.
These people live for research. They can work on anything (because interests them) and no matter if it has earth shattering consequences or small breaks they can still be happy during the process, so calling it risky or dangerous is laughable.
I was completely unprepared for what was my primary reaction: that DaVinci just documented every idea in his head, and that some of them just happened to pan out. But for some reason, we credit him for the small percentage of ideas that just happened to work, and ignore all the wrong ideas. To me, he didn't seem like a genius, he seemed very much like a broken clock that just happened to be right twice a day.
There's a certain survivor bias in these sorts of discussions, where we identify great contributors as taking huge risks, and so forth and so on. This is true, but we also maybe tend to give them too much credit because we ignore all their failures. We tell ourselves that's why perseverence is so important, but then turn around and make fun of people or even become angry at them for wasting our time when so many things don't turn out. The difference between perseverence and shotgun approaches to pursuing knowledge seems arbitrary to me lots of times.
If you followed every one of DaVinci's ideas, for example, you'd be screwed, because he was so wrong about so many things. Today, he'd probably be seen as a crackpot because it would be so difficult to know when his idea was right and when it was wrong. The value of his ideas lies as much in his audience, the people who realized what of his ideas was correct, as much as, if not more, than in DaVinci himself.
I guess I've grown really disillusioned with advancements in science, because so much of it involves a sort of mythmaking that seems fairy-tale to me. To me, the reality seems more distributed, involving small contributions, gradually changing over time, with a lot of randomness involved.
I don't mean to come across as saying we shouldn't encourage experimentation and tinkering, or that it shouldn't be valued. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. But at the same time something seems off about our incentive structures--the way we give credit seems off.
Think of it this way: we do science because at some level, what's correct and what's not is an empirical idea. You could have 10 very reasonable explanations and 9 of them will be wrong "just because." In many cases, being intelligent has nothing to do with why the 9 are wrong, otherwise all we'd need would be philosophy and math. So why do we pretend that the 1 person who was correct was correct because they are a genius? It seems like you can't have geniuses and a need for science at the same time.
Re: DaVinci, do you think it's possible that he knew most of his ideas were bad? I write down every product idea I have, but I know that maybe 1 in 10 would actually be used by people and maybe 1 in 10 of the useful ones would be good investments of my time to work on. I think that writing down all the bad ideas helps me think of good ideas though.
Re: Scientific geniuses are admired too much, I think you're right. The Media totally picks out the success stories because that's what interests people. Then The Media is incentivized to make these successful scientists seem really smart, also because that's what interests people. Sam Altman has talked about a similar thing. When you meet the Brian Chesky's and Mark Zuckerbergs today, you see brilliant, confident entrepreneurs that seem like geniuses that must have some special DNA. However, the reality is that 10 years ago these people seemed totally regular, just struggling entrepreneurs like so many others. Though they are clever and hard working, it's not like they're made of a different thing than everyone else.
> He was not a very careful person as a mathematician. He made a lot of mistakes. But he made mistakes in a good direction. I tried to imitate him. But I’ve realized that it’s very difficult to make good mistakes.
I bet if you compared DaVinci's mistakes to the mistakes of your average Renaissance thinker you'd find a striking difference in calliber (and breadth).
In the era Newton came from you would have to be wealthy to be able to afford other interests beyond surviving. So a lot of the big leaps were made by those from rich families or those lucky enough to have some sort of wealthy backer.
Plus certain things like education, family, kids are attached to specific timelines in a typical life. Health and the ability to do things are also attached to timelines. When you take a risk you could be putting all of those on line.
The ability to expend time with no certainty of returns is a luxury only those from a wealthy background have. And naturally they will be more successfuly as there are more efforts from people of those backgrounds.
Interestingly, this is the second time in the past 24 hours I've encountered the idea of comparing a VC (Marc's reference) with another class of high achievers. (previous one, a comparison with entrepreneurs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13371813)
Furthermore, you don't need to make a breakthrough in everything to satisfy your desire for knowledge. Even more so for Newton, which was known by his seclusion and introversion.
Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method.
Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following:
1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history.
2. There is insufficient information concerning him.
3. Studying the historical person of Jesus Christ according to the historical method is akin to, or of similar value to, the study of alchemy, i.e. a waste of time.
I seriously doubt whether any historian interested in ancient history would make such claims.
It's pretty ignorant and reckless coming from pg.
In any case, whether a creator exist or not, it is still a waste of time to search in the Bible for information about his plans for the future, like Newton did.
If you are going to argue it wasn't a waste of time, you have to point out what useful information Newton discovered in his studies of the Bible.
Theology on the other hand is the study of God and the Bible from a religious rather then historical angle. So it is a completely different subject.
Therefore, before Theology, one must first establish the historicity and details of those events according to the historical method and textual criticism (without any bias or presuppositions from naturalist philosophy). Theology then takes it from there. And really Theology is nothing more than a study of what is already there in the Bible, for the Bible is a record not just of the events themselves, but also the meaning of those events. It provides the facts and the rubric for interpreting those facts. "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear.
However, this was just one example. I think the article could be greatly improved by giving, like, 50 examples (in an abbreviated form, like "Newton: physics, alchemy, theology"). With one example it's sorta easy to think, "eh that might just be an exception". With 50 example, it's easy to think, "wow, look at all of that; the core idea definitely does seem to be true".
[1] https://stratechery.com/2017/the-ten-year-anniversary-of-the...
Risky? What is the definition of risk? What was the downside to Newton making these 'bets'? What was the risk of Andressen deciding in college to think that what he did was the right way to go? And importantly (and my point) wouldn't the exact same action by a tenured professor be more of a risk?
Let's take the risk that Donald Trump took vs. Hillary Clinton. Trump is hated by many now and would be regardless of whether he won or lost the election (in many ways decimated his brand). The same is not true for Hillary even though she did take a reputation hit it's nowhere near what Trump (with his rhetoric) took. So same thing "run for President" different people different levels of risk.
"Maybe the smartness and the craziness were not as separate as we think."
This seems kind of obvious to me. Yes, creative and driven people are interested in lots of strange things. Yes, genius often means the ability to take ideas or discoveries from apparently widely different areas and tie them together to form new understandings.
"Newton made three bets. One of them worked."
This makes no sense. Of course his physics was a success. But how could anyone judge the theological pursuits of an individual to be a success or a failure?
And if the pursuit was a failure, then doesn't that negate the earlier implication that his studying theology ("crazy") was in some ways associated with his success in physics ("genius")?
The reality is that genius minds are intellectually fearless. Newton was into alchemy and fringe theology. Edison tried to build a machine to contact the dead. Many of the great minds of the 60s who at least envisioned everything you're using now were into all kinds of "crazy" stuff: parapsychology, psychedelic consciousness expansion, shamanism, etc.
Was some of that stuff silly? Sure. Was some or even most of it a dead end? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that great minds fear no idea.
If you think alchemy might have promise, go and study it! You'll be taking a risk, but it might just change the world (and put you in the history books).
In physics he had a lower[2] benefit but much higher probability of progress.
1. Plus he went a little mad from chemical fumes.
2. Really. Imagine[3] making a real breakthrough in alchemy or theology!
3. I can't imagine it and you almost certainly can't either.Newton is an exception as well. While his biographers down-play his failures, he is also credited (at least in High School Physics) with things that were the work of dozens or even hundreds of scientists - or giants you might say.
Trying to describe the mindset of newton 100s of years after his death seems a bit reaching.
I think Fredrick Smith (founder of Fedex) is a much better example of someone taking an entrepreneurial and intellectual risk.
http://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/history-timeline/histor...
So what exactly was Newton risking?
Everything.
When he was first admitted to Trinity, he was a subsizar - that is, he had to perform valet duties in order to pay for his education. He only stopped doing those duties when he was awarded a scholarship.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-things-you-may-n...
"When Newton was three, his mother wed a wealthy clergyman, Barnabas Smith..."
"In 1705, Newton was knighted by Queen Anne. By that time, he’d become wealthy after inheriting his mother’s property..."
Newton's mother died in 1679, when Newton was 37. Principia was published in 1687.
(0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Isaac_Newton
Not trying to be dense here, I just don't see the insight. How is what you are saying any different than "you don't know what's going to happen" without Newton attached to it?
That's a blaming statement used to indicate someone is being pedantic, which can then be used to "prove" them wrong by the followup. All of your counter examples are based on the obtaining a better position, which is all about dealing with globalized suffering (money is stored work and work is a unit of causality and suffering is a result of causality).
Newton presumably pursued understanding the unknown, which means he chose his own suffering/work that was different from any objective based on making bets to get ahead in life at the time.
I think it's entirely fair to point out that Newton wasn't betting at the time. He was discovering purely for the sake of discovery.
Newton didn't investigate alchemy and theology because he was trying to diversify his fame investment portfolio. To see him this way is to do a disservice to him and to history.
Expending resources, whether time or money, on something with an uncertain outcome is a bet. I'm not sure what the objection is to using that term. Nobody said Newton was a Silicon Valley VC.
Also, having read a fair bit about his life, his scientific and mathematical endeavours were most definitely not secondary to anything.
He has a good point, put poorly, and without good support in his chosen example.
(I don't mean to disagree or agree with you, just genuinely don't know what you mean, might end up going either way after you explain your cryptic (to me) remark)
This kind of slow work and accumulating recognition (by a series of Cambridge alums up through the Lucasian professor at the time, throughout 1661 to 1672) is not really well-described as a "bet".
You can do that in physics and natural philosophy too. What's your point? There are plenty of theologians. This idea that the only noble pursuit is scientific, which PG seems to be saying in this essay from my reading, and in fact other commenters, is borderline scientism.
Why would theology have been a bad thing to pursue, other than some sense of satisfaction you don't even get from people remembering you after you are dead?
Have a broad and well-rounded view tends to help. I don't know a good mathematician who doesn't read, write, play music, explore other fields with passion and vigor. You get fresh ideas and it keeps your mind limber and flexible.
I'm not sure you could say a Newton who knew nothing but physics and physics only would have made the same breakthroughs.
It can't be understated how painful that has to be from their perspective.
I suppose a similar story is where they do produce something of value, but it's incremental in nature. Incremental advancements usually don't receive much recognition.