Why our heroes fall. Plus, Albert Einstein gets stupid, Jordan Peterson gets angry, why the "Madden curse" happens, and how to lead the major leagues in walks.
THANK YOU SIR! I COULDN'T HAVE PAID YOU ENOUGH FOR SUCH INSIGHT. I NOW HAVE A NEW ''NAVIGATING TOOL'' FOR USE IN THE ''UNCHARTED TRAILS'' OF MY LIFE. THANK YOU! I WILL BE SEEKING OUT YOUR ARTICLES, BOTH OLD & NEW. I HAVE HAD A GOOD DAY ALREADY!!!
Interesting article. I'm hoping that having to learn a whole new technology stack every 5 years during my 40 year career helped keep my brain active. We'll see. :)
Your thesis applies especially to innovators like Napoleon or Don Coryell. They pioneered revolutionary techniques in their respective fields, but eventually others learned and caught up to them. Madden himself is quite the interesting counter-case as he left football coaching at the top of his game, then revolutionized broadcasting, then went on to oversee the creation of his eponymous video game.
Certainly your thesis that the incentives change once you reach your concept of success makes perfect sense.
As to peer review, I would only like to add that my favorite employer came up with an amazing system to mitigate the effects. After you attained a certain level (that of 80% of the employees), you were randomly assigned a fellow employee of an equal or lower level to do their annual evaluation. I never assessed the same person twice, and usually had no experience with them, their team, or their clients. I had to do original research on their performance and evaluation of the things they said in their self-assessment. We had no way of kissing up to our assessors, having never met them and likely never encountering them again. Then we had to present our case both orally and in writing before an assembly of managers and higher ups, assuring both that we did a thorough job and that we learned something about making persuasive presentations to others. It was labor intensive, but I thought it was genius.
That's a good point about Madden — some people are just good at embracing new challenges and learning new fields. Madden always struck me as a low-ego guy who just liked to have fun... maybe that had something to do with it.
That's also an interesting way of doing review... it's obviously not perfect as no system is, but perhaps the best that can be achieved. Scientists do something similar with their peer review, they have to submit papers to random anonymous people in their fields. My worry with this system is that this person won't have the incentive to dive deep enough into the research to properly understand & evaluate it, especially if you're doing something unique and cutting-edge.
THANK YOU SIR! I COULDN'T HAVE PAID YOU ENOUGH FOR SUCH INSIGHT. I NOW HAVE A NEW ''NAVIGATING TOOL'' FOR USE IN THE ''UNCHARTED TRAILS'' OF MY LIFE. THANK YOU! I WILL BE SEEKING OUT YOUR ARTICLES, BOTH OLD & NEW. I HAVE HAD A GOOD DAY ALREADY!!!
Thanks Herbert, appreciate the positive feedback. :)
CAPS KEY BROKEN, OR JUST HARD OF SEEING?
Interesting article. I'm hoping that having to learn a whole new technology stack every 5 years during my 40 year career helped keep my brain active. We'll see. :)
Your thesis applies especially to innovators like Napoleon or Don Coryell. They pioneered revolutionary techniques in their respective fields, but eventually others learned and caught up to them. Madden himself is quite the interesting counter-case as he left football coaching at the top of his game, then revolutionized broadcasting, then went on to oversee the creation of his eponymous video game.
Certainly your thesis that the incentives change once you reach your concept of success makes perfect sense.
As to peer review, I would only like to add that my favorite employer came up with an amazing system to mitigate the effects. After you attained a certain level (that of 80% of the employees), you were randomly assigned a fellow employee of an equal or lower level to do their annual evaluation. I never assessed the same person twice, and usually had no experience with them, their team, or their clients. I had to do original research on their performance and evaluation of the things they said in their self-assessment. We had no way of kissing up to our assessors, having never met them and likely never encountering them again. Then we had to present our case both orally and in writing before an assembly of managers and higher ups, assuring both that we did a thorough job and that we learned something about making persuasive presentations to others. It was labor intensive, but I thought it was genius.
Thanks for reading, Frank :)
That's a good point about Madden — some people are just good at embracing new challenges and learning new fields. Madden always struck me as a low-ego guy who just liked to have fun... maybe that had something to do with it.
That's also an interesting way of doing review... it's obviously not perfect as no system is, but perhaps the best that can be achieved. Scientists do something similar with their peer review, they have to submit papers to random anonymous people in their fields. My worry with this system is that this person won't have the incentive to dive deep enough into the research to properly understand & evaluate it, especially if you're doing something unique and cutting-edge.