one genius or thirteen smart guys

The thing I wrote about expertise the other day was inspired by Jared Spool, but more informed by Malcolm Gladwell's speech at the New Yorker conference about genius etc. And more stuff that Gladwell said has stuck with me. So I watched it again and took notes.

His main topic is genius. And the types of genius we'll need to solve modern problems.

He contrasts Michael Ventris; who deciphered Linear B with Andrew Wiles who proved Fermat's Last Theorem.

Ventris solved his problem through lots of thinking, a flash of genius and was, to some extent, a gifted and enthusiastic amateur. Or at least 'self-taught'. He did it largely on his own and his solution was relatively short and simple, only 20 pages. Gladwell describes him as a 'pre-modern genius'. 

Wiles was more collaborative, his proof built on the thinking of many other mathematicians. His success seems to have been more about tenacity and focus than about an inspired moment of genius. His proof was incredibly long. And his was the success of 'thirteen smart guys' rather than one genius. (I'm summarising this drastically, you should watch the video.)

And Gladwell stretches that to a fascinating suggestion - that the problems the world faces now are more likely to be responsive to 'thirteen smart guy' solutions than 'one real genius' solutions. (I assume he's using 'guy' in the American, more gender-neutral, sense.) Because the problems we face are complicated and involved and are likely to require long, detailed responses. Unfortunately, he suggests, our education and social systems aren't geared up for that. The people we're taught to admire and emulate are the lone genius types. That's what education is pointing at, that's what the business press promotes, that's even how we talk about sport. And this, of course, has all sorts of echoes with Ken Robinson's talk at TED about how the education system puts academics at the top of the aspirational tree. (I can't believe you've not watched that yet, but if you haven't you should.) He then talks about how we're under-capitalising the human potential of various ethnic groups and not giving us ourselves enough smart people to meet the challenges of the future.

He suggests we should stop thinking so much about 'the top of the curve' - and in this article continuing the theme (via kottke) suggests instead that:

"We will require, from a larger and larger percentage of our work force, the ability to engage in relatively complicated analytical and cognitive tasks. So it's not that we're going to need more geniuses, but the 50th percentile is going to have to be better educated than they are now. We're going to have to graduate more people from high school who've done advanced math, is a very simple way of putting it."

(see also)

And all that makes complete sense to me. And clearly we should pay attention because he's talking about some important sociological effects and issues. Stuff that could matter to everyone.

But what he's talking about also explains a lot of behaviour you in see in our trivial little worlds of 'the creative industries'. Because the elevation of the genius is certainly big in advertising. Agencies are always looking for the genius creative director or planning director that will dramatically turn around their fortunes. (Reinforced, of course, by the press. No-one's going to issue a press release saying Agency Hires Fifteen Quite Good People Who All Promise To Work Really Hard, instead they want to announce Agency Hire Creative Genius With Many Awards). And actually, I suspect that if you're product is a 30 second ad or a poster then the lone genius approach might be the way to go. An ad, in the old traditional sense, seems like a Linear B kind of problem. And so, maybe, does a piece of graphic design. Or a book cover. That kind of thing.

But the kind of problems we increasingly face now; experience design problems, experiential marketing, big, complex, thorny interactive design issues, social network strategies, the stuff that businesses are increasingly spending their money on. All that kind of stuff. They seem more like Fermat-style problems. They're 13 smart guy problems. And require different kinds of thinkers, more about analysis and tenacity than the flash of inspiration after lunch. And maybe that means that we need new structures and practises, not copied from the agency model but new inventions or borrowings from elsewhere.

Just a thought. Basically, though, you should just watch the video.

Comments

[Lebowski]

An article in todays NY Times about a scientific study into the swarm intelligence of ants and how humans need to evolve to learn how to work together better in large numbers to solve problems:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/science/13traff.html?em&ex=1195102800&en=2770422853e9f63e&ei=5087%0A

[Seni Thomas]

Thought provoking. I think I personally stand somewhere in the middle. I feel that you still need that one visionary at the helm that has the will and the clout to push though new ideas, but they still need a well rounded support team. In todays world there is simply to much information and innovation is collaborative; however, I feel that pure network creativity isn't sustainable in a corporate environment. At least not today. Like you said people love to have that one name they can buy to turn around their fortunes and these so called BIG names can cut through a lot of the politicking BS that 13 quite good guys may not be able too.

my 2 cents

Seni

[Dino]

At the recent Connection Planning conference, Lisa Seward spoke of her vision of "connections planning" as one that facilitates collaboration and invention.
In my mind, this can mean a protocol to bring in a broader range of creative input and problem-solving strategies, guided by constant collaboration. Or, a way to get 13 smart guys to solve problems as oppposed to one?

Incidentally, to take this back to the dreaded "is blogging killing planning" debate, I think that the planning weblogs/sphere is a great example of the kind of invention that comes from a lot of people chipping in with different points of view.

[Roi Ginat]

Being smart and/or talented is one thing. Education is another, and last not but not least, it's really matters how lazy we are. Lazy - in terms of sticking to the same thinking patterns we are used to...

Personally, I believe that the great advances of perception will come when the right single genius re-visits the "boring" work of 13 smart guys

[Richard Band]

I found your post after I'd done an almost identical (but less in-depth) version...arriving at a similar conclusion. Having thought about it a bit more, I wonder if there are "faster experts" (i.e. reach a level of expertise quicker in say 5,000 hours) as well as "slower experts" who may take longer to get to that level of ability. I'm not suggesting that one is better than the other, but rather that a team at work may be complemented by fast experts and slow experts.

[Leon Jacobs]

For a slightly more cynical view on how much ingenuity is required to solve the world's problems, read Thomas Homer-Dixon's The Ingenuity Gap.

It's been out for a few years, but still relevant, methinks.

http://homerdixon.com/ingenuitygap/

[anon]

I think you have it wrong. Fermat's theorem was solved by 13 geniuses. Wiles, Ribet, et al. are not some random ragtag collection of merely "smart" mathematicians. They are brilliant AND willing to focus for years AND willing to collaborate.

Anyone who tries to make the case that the work by Wiles et al. didn't require genius probably doesn't understand the proof at all. (Which I hardly blame them for!)

Yes, I'm sure 13 smart guys can work together and achieve a lot. But 13 geniuses can do even better. Somehow there's this weird meme out there that the choices are between one lone genius and a group of smart people; but in the modern world the geniuses can band together in a group too.

[Matt]

Read this article and it reminded me of the ideas from this post http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570DE00740E18002573D3004E99BB.html?ref=technology seems like a long time ago now but guess there's no expiration date on good ideas or blogs!

My first comment on a blog too so seems like a good idea to hide it in history.