I am struck anew with my ignorance of unbelievably fascinating and multi-gifted people that have faded into obscurity! How do you unearth them? I have never heard of Josef Hoffman. I frequently read books on polymaths and geniuses and wonder where are all the others. Surely we can expand the examples beyond the often cited, like Edison or Da Vinci. Surely there are thousands more in other cultures and older times to honour.
HIs benefactor impacted Hoffman's life profoundly. Unlike Da Vinci and others, who received monies to create something, Clark's gift was solely for Hoffman's benefit. This pure offering demonstrates Alfred Corning Clark’s character.
Hoffman’s genius was not a curse; he merely required better tools to manage that storm inside his prodigious brain, too full of ever expanding creative ideas, antagonized by his strive for perfection.
I prefer your metaphor, that he lived his passions as a “Möbius strip, an elegant loop where genius and ruin share the same surface.” Thank you!
Thank you for such a thoughtful and generous response to the essay! It's heartening to know Hofmann's story spoke to you too. Your point about the vast number of fascinating figures lost to obscurity is so true. Finding them often involves a mix of things, chasing down footnotes, exploring digital archives, reading specialized biographies (like Juszyńska's monumental work on Hofmann), or sometimes just following a hunch sparked by a brief mention somewhere. The Polish sources calling him a 'geniusz zapomniany' really highlighted this for me. I absolutely agree we need to actively look beyond the familiar examples like Edison and Da Vinci to honour forgotten innovators and artists from all eras and cultures.
Your observation about Alfred Corning Clark's patronage is accurate (great observation), the altruistic nature, focused solely on Hofmann's well-being rather than a commission, truly speaks volumes. And I really value your perspective on Hofmann's internal struggles. Framing it as needing better 'tools' to manage the 'storm' rather than a simple 'curse' is perhaps more accurate and compassionate; I aimed to capture that immense, almost overwhelming, pressure of his gifts against his drive for perfection.
I'm truly delighted the 'Möbius strip' metaphor worked for you, thank you for saying so! It felt like the best way to capture that intertwining of brilliance and self-destruction by other means!
Reading through all the comments ~ and thinking of other 'Möbius strip geniusses' who ended more or less in obscurity (Raoul H. Francé, Viktor Schauberger, Nicolas Tesla, etc.) I'm also struck by the animosity that these individuals often had to endure. As if their exceptional gifts of ingenuity was automatically an internal armour to offer immunity against personal (or economical, political) attacks.
Why did Hofmann ruin his health with alcoholism? Surely not because of living a charmed life on the wings of his talents and success...
Exceptionally gifted sometimes (or frequently?) goes hand in hand with high sensitivity (vulnerability, sense of isolation), and all the focus is on career, professional success, and legacy... Not necessarily an easy life.
You have pointed out something profound about the frequent link between extraordinary, boundary-breaking talent and significant personal struggle or external hostility. It's a pattern seen in many figures who don't fit neatly into established boxes. Your observation that ingenuity doesn't grant immunity appears right, often, it seems to attract unique pressures and scrutiny.
Regarding Hofmann's turn to alcohol, it's impossible to know the exact reasons, but I agree it likely wasn't a simple consequence of a 'charmed life'. The relentless pressure to maintain an almost superhuman standard, the potential isolation that comes with unique gifts, the sheer physical and mental toll of his career from such a young age (John von Neumann was similar) these factors surely contributed. Perhaps the 'wings of talent' felt more like a heavy burden at times.
Your final point seems appropriate, exceptional gifts do often seem intertwined with heightened sensitivity and vulnerability. When the entire focus remains on professional achievement, the personal cost can be immense and easily overlooked. It underscores that the lives of such individuals are rarely as straightforward or easy as their successes might suggest. Thank you for looking into this important issue deeper.
well, I could say it comes from personal experience ~ (with the caveat that I in no way intend to compare myself to those geniuses!!!) ~ I have experienced attacks when my (limited and certainly not 'superhuman') budding natural creative talents have in the past attracted aggressive responses. Presumably triggering something (perhaps envy or jealousy) in some people, which was hard and temporarily crushing.
I can also add that such aggression has become less frequent the more aware I have become of my own insecurities and 'inner critic' and have learned to work with them, becoming my own ally so to speak. Such internal processes within human Consciousness, and the knowledge of how to deal with them, were perhaps even more obscure in previous generations than they are now.
It seems true that expressions of unique talent or creativity can sometimes trigger complex, negative reactions in others, perhaps stemming from envy or insecurity as you suggest. Facing that kind of aggression, especially when you're simply trying to express yourself, can indeed be crushing.
Your insight about learning to work with your own insecurities and 'inner critic' to become your own ally is powerful. That journey towards self-awareness is crucial. And you make a very important point: the understanding and tools for navigating such complex internal landscapes were certainly far less developed or accessible in Hofmann's time than they are becoming now. He likely had fewer resources, internal or external, to help him manage the unique pressures he faced. Thank you again for adding this layer of lived personal experience to the discussion.
Wow! What an extraordinary human genius! And he lived and performed in America. How come we never heard of him?
I thought ingenious great people of that era were forgotten, ignored, undiscovered because they were European and all the focus was on America (like Raoul Francé, Austrio-Hungarian soil scientist, writer, genius) and their work was not available in English. This has obviously not been the case with Josef Hofmann. The explanation that people get confused when they cannot stick a multi-talented genius in a box makes a lot of sense.
Thank YOU Veronika - Hofmann's story is extraordinary, and his fade from widespread public knowledge, especially given his significant career in America, is genuinely surprising. Your point about European figures sometimes being overlooked in the US is often true, which makes Hofmann's case even more curious since he was so present there. I do think, as you noted, that the difficulty in neatly categorizing multifaceted talents like his, the 'can't fit him in a box' problem, plays a big part in why figures like him become less anchored in collective memory compared to those known for a single achievement
If I remember correctly, many famous scientists, like Einstein, Feynman, and others, were also skilled musicians. This brings me to a question I’ve thought about a few times: Does music make them better scientists? Or does being a scientist make them better musicians? Or perhaps excelling in one area naturally helps them be above average in the other?
I have seen this being true in other domains, too, where someone brilliant in one field is very good or equally brilliant in something else. This leads to a question for now, focus on science and music: Do the skills developed through music (like pattern recognition or creativity) directly boost scientific ability? Or is it more about shared personality traits, like perseverance and curiosity, that drive success in both areas?
I do not know the answer, but sometimes, I feel a spillover effect in a play.
That is an astute observation. I looked at IQ and music and could not find any strong correlation - but you are absolutely right about to think of scientists and maybe their ability to focus, perseverance, etc.
I wrote a while back that 'Researchers argue that the cognitive demands of composition parallel those of high-level problem-solving, pattern recognition, and linguistic fluency. From Music and Intelligence https://onepercentrule.substack.com/p/music-and-intelligence
But really like your connection on music and scientists. I will explore that angle - it is a good one.
If you’ve read the book Range (https://tinyurl.com/bddeskkd), it explores the importance of being a T-shaped individual—someone exceptionally skilled in one area (the vertical bar of the T) while having broad general knowledge across other domains (the horizontal bar). It’s a compelling framework for success in today’s complex and interconnected world.
However, I’d argue for a π (pi)-shaped model instead. Being exceptionally good in two areas (the two vertical bars of the π) while still maintaining a solid base of general knowledge offers even greater potential for success. Mastery in two distinct fields creates opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas, fostering creativity, innovation, and unique problem-solving approaches that a T-shape might not fully unlock.
While two verticals seem ideal for balance, I wonder if adding even more areas of mastery would lead to diminishing returns. Could there be a "evolutionary limit" to how many domains we can excel in? Then again, figures like Leonardo da Vinci seem to defy that limit, excelling across multiple fields. Perhaps this is rare, but it raises the question: how many areas of deep expertise can one person realistically master, and does it depend on the individual?
I have not yet - I saw your previous comment on Range, and must read it.
I expect, as you say, achieving the kind of deep mastery needed for either the T or the π requires significant focus and dedicated effort, precisely the kind of deep engagement that we both suggest is becoming harder to sustain in our current environment of constant distraction.
It sounds like a very valuable framework to consider, highlighting the immense rewards of deep expertise, while implicitly underscoring the challenge of achieving it. Thanks for introducing this stimulating π perspective! I will read it.
Your musings on the limits of mastery and the DaVinci example are enduring questions about human potential. My 2 cents, how many areas one can master likely depends heavily on the individual and their circumstances.
I agree that the individual plays a significant role, as without inner drive and curiosity, it isn’t easy to achieve mastery in any field. However, having the means to pursue it also plays an equally important role. Being born to the right parents, having access to resources, or finding the right mentors and teachers can be pivotal. Historically, many great minds benefited from one-on-one mentorship or personalized education, often made possible by privilege or wealth—a luxury that only a small population can afford today. Unfortunately, most people today do not have access to such specialized guidance.
I also believe it was far easier to excel across multiple fields, especially in science, a few hundred years ago than it is today. One of the main reasons is that achieving mastery today requires much deeper specialization. Fields have evolved into several sub-fields and even sub-sub-fields, each requiring significant exploration time and effort. The sheer volume of knowledge in each domain has grown exponentially, making it increasingly difficult for one person to gain expertise in multiple areas.
Additionally, modern education systems are largely designed to prepare individuals for jobs or to pass standardized tests rather than fostering the depth and interdisciplinary thinking required to specialize broadly. In contrast, many famous scientists of the past were taught in ways that encouraged curiosity and mastery of multiple disciplines, often through personalized, one-on-one instruction. This kind of education is rare today, and the systemic focus on employability often discourages students from pursuing deep or broad learning.
That said, I believe one-on-one education is still the best way to learn, and I hope AI will help solve this problem. With the development of AGI or ASI, we may have better opportunities to become proficient in multiple domains. AI could provide personalized mentorship, adapt to each individual's unique strengths and weaknesses, and even integrate knowledge across disciplines, much like the polymaths of the past.
However, this raises an important question: if education no longer leads to meaningful work because most tasks have been automated, what will its purpose be? Perhaps education in such a world will shift toward helping individuals find meaning, fostering creativity, or solving new challenges that arise even in an automated society. This is a topic worth exploring further, but I remain optimistic that AI could transform education and make deep, interdisciplinary learning accessible to far more people.
That is a great connection expanding the discussion from Hofmann's specific case to these crucial themes of mastery, education, and technology. You outline the essential interplay between inner drive and external opportunity perfectly, Hofmann's access to top-tier mentorship and financial support undeniably shaped his trajectory, alongside his innate gifts. Hofmann certainly benefited from via his family, Clark, and Rubinstein.
I think your analysis of why polymathy is harder today is compelling, the depth of specialization required now is immense compared to even a century ago. It makes figures like Hofmann, operating at a high level in disparate fields, seem even more remarkable, perhaps products of a different educational ethos. I agree with your critique of modern education's focus often being narrower than the holistic, mastery-oriented approaches of the past. In fact I strongly agree!
The potential role of AI in education that you outline is fascinating, I am also hopeful about the idea of AI providing personalized, interdisciplinary mentorship at scale is a great vision for overcoming some of the limitations you identified. And it naturally leads to that critical question about education's ultimate purpose when traditional work changes. It's a discussion we certainly need to be having.
I've been working with others on this. Like always, it is some of the university educators that are often the last to react!
There is so much packed into that comment MG. You have given me much to think about and material ideas for essays - concerning one-on-one tutoring, Bloom showed a 2 sigma improvement through tutoring and greats like Von Neumann had tutors. As did Hofmann. But in my new post I also show how the working class formed community reading groups and clawed their way out of the mines to build a new middle class.
I still believe that tutoring is the best way, and as we discussed before AI will help immensely with this - yet Rose in his book says education was not the most important factor - as one example this quote stands out about teacher training!
"For F. H. Spencer (b. 1872), a Swindon factory worker’s son, mutual improvement provided all the intellectual stimulation he did not receive in teacher training. “The education of a pupil teacher in the eighteen eighties ... was designed to enable a mediocre head master to prepare an unintelligent pupil teacher for a very easy examination. Any lad or girl of energy and intelligence could have passed the fourth-year examination before the end of the first year,” he protested. “In history we just learned facts out of a date-book. And I got some background out of Scott. Geography was a thing of names, meaningless, wearisome names, and our instructor was dull, stupid and conscientious beyond words.” It was a Young Men’s Friendly Society that “liberalised and awakened such mind as I had.” Members debated capitalism and socialism, performed scenes from The Merchant of Venice and The Pickwick Papers. A mix of students, workers, and lower professionals encouraged Spencer to read broadly and trained him in public speaking."
It's very likely to be a reciprocal effect. It's equally true with visual art - Leonardo being the most famous example. A scientific/engineering mindset goes hand in hand with the creative mindset. Indeed, it can easily be argued to be one and the same.
Not someone I know, but a beautiful memoir to someone who was unique. It reminds me of a comment my father shared when I was young, "The best investors and scientists tend to be the some of the best musicians as well." This again seems to prove the sentiment.
I wonder who today is similar to Hofmann - someone of unique talent that no one knows about and may not know of until they are gone.
That is a fascinating thought about science and music - I looked at Nobel winners and music a while back, some showed musical ability, but it was not as wide as I thought it might be. But now I am determined to research a bit deeper.
It is a good question - who are the living Hofmann's - I will write about it, if I unearth anything of interest.
Look forward to hearing about any you uncover! Although, perhaps like artists, these people are ahead of their time and we rarely appreciate them in their own period, but only recognize their genius through the lens of history.
I am struck anew with my ignorance of unbelievably fascinating and multi-gifted people that have faded into obscurity! How do you unearth them? I have never heard of Josef Hoffman. I frequently read books on polymaths and geniuses and wonder where are all the others. Surely we can expand the examples beyond the often cited, like Edison or Da Vinci. Surely there are thousands more in other cultures and older times to honour.
HIs benefactor impacted Hoffman's life profoundly. Unlike Da Vinci and others, who received monies to create something, Clark's gift was solely for Hoffman's benefit. This pure offering demonstrates Alfred Corning Clark’s character.
Hoffman’s genius was not a curse; he merely required better tools to manage that storm inside his prodigious brain, too full of ever expanding creative ideas, antagonized by his strive for perfection.
I prefer your metaphor, that he lived his passions as a “Möbius strip, an elegant loop where genius and ruin share the same surface.” Thank you!
Thank you for such a thoughtful and generous response to the essay! It's heartening to know Hofmann's story spoke to you too. Your point about the vast number of fascinating figures lost to obscurity is so true. Finding them often involves a mix of things, chasing down footnotes, exploring digital archives, reading specialized biographies (like Juszyńska's monumental work on Hofmann), or sometimes just following a hunch sparked by a brief mention somewhere. The Polish sources calling him a 'geniusz zapomniany' really highlighted this for me. I absolutely agree we need to actively look beyond the familiar examples like Edison and Da Vinci to honour forgotten innovators and artists from all eras and cultures.
Your observation about Alfred Corning Clark's patronage is accurate (great observation), the altruistic nature, focused solely on Hofmann's well-being rather than a commission, truly speaks volumes. And I really value your perspective on Hofmann's internal struggles. Framing it as needing better 'tools' to manage the 'storm' rather than a simple 'curse' is perhaps more accurate and compassionate; I aimed to capture that immense, almost overwhelming, pressure of his gifts against his drive for perfection.
I'm truly delighted the 'Möbius strip' metaphor worked for you, thank you for saying so! It felt like the best way to capture that intertwining of brilliance and self-destruction by other means!
The Möbius strip is an ingenious metaphor here!
Reading through all the comments ~ and thinking of other 'Möbius strip geniusses' who ended more or less in obscurity (Raoul H. Francé, Viktor Schauberger, Nicolas Tesla, etc.) I'm also struck by the animosity that these individuals often had to endure. As if their exceptional gifts of ingenuity was automatically an internal armour to offer immunity against personal (or economical, political) attacks.
Why did Hofmann ruin his health with alcoholism? Surely not because of living a charmed life on the wings of his talents and success...
Exceptionally gifted sometimes (or frequently?) goes hand in hand with high sensitivity (vulnerability, sense of isolation), and all the focus is on career, professional success, and legacy... Not necessarily an easy life.
You have pointed out something profound about the frequent link between extraordinary, boundary-breaking talent and significant personal struggle or external hostility. It's a pattern seen in many figures who don't fit neatly into established boxes. Your observation that ingenuity doesn't grant immunity appears right, often, it seems to attract unique pressures and scrutiny.
Regarding Hofmann's turn to alcohol, it's impossible to know the exact reasons, but I agree it likely wasn't a simple consequence of a 'charmed life'. The relentless pressure to maintain an almost superhuman standard, the potential isolation that comes with unique gifts, the sheer physical and mental toll of his career from such a young age (John von Neumann was similar) these factors surely contributed. Perhaps the 'wings of talent' felt more like a heavy burden at times.
Your final point seems appropriate, exceptional gifts do often seem intertwined with heightened sensitivity and vulnerability. When the entire focus remains on professional achievement, the personal cost can be immense and easily overlooked. It underscores that the lives of such individuals are rarely as straightforward or easy as their successes might suggest. Thank you for looking into this important issue deeper.
well, I could say it comes from personal experience ~ (with the caveat that I in no way intend to compare myself to those geniuses!!!) ~ I have experienced attacks when my (limited and certainly not 'superhuman') budding natural creative talents have in the past attracted aggressive responses. Presumably triggering something (perhaps envy or jealousy) in some people, which was hard and temporarily crushing.
I can also add that such aggression has become less frequent the more aware I have become of my own insecurities and 'inner critic' and have learned to work with them, becoming my own ally so to speak. Such internal processes within human Consciousness, and the knowledge of how to deal with them, were perhaps even more obscure in previous generations than they are now.
It seems true that expressions of unique talent or creativity can sometimes trigger complex, negative reactions in others, perhaps stemming from envy or insecurity as you suggest. Facing that kind of aggression, especially when you're simply trying to express yourself, can indeed be crushing.
Your insight about learning to work with your own insecurities and 'inner critic' to become your own ally is powerful. That journey towards self-awareness is crucial. And you make a very important point: the understanding and tools for navigating such complex internal landscapes were certainly far less developed or accessible in Hofmann's time than they are becoming now. He likely had fewer resources, internal or external, to help him manage the unique pressures he faced. Thank you again for adding this layer of lived personal experience to the discussion.
Wow! What an extraordinary human genius! And he lived and performed in America. How come we never heard of him?
I thought ingenious great people of that era were forgotten, ignored, undiscovered because they were European and all the focus was on America (like Raoul Francé, Austrio-Hungarian soil scientist, writer, genius) and their work was not available in English. This has obviously not been the case with Josef Hofmann. The explanation that people get confused when they cannot stick a multi-talented genius in a box makes a lot of sense.
Thank YOU Veronika - Hofmann's story is extraordinary, and his fade from widespread public knowledge, especially given his significant career in America, is genuinely surprising. Your point about European figures sometimes being overlooked in the US is often true, which makes Hofmann's case even more curious since he was so present there. I do think, as you noted, that the difficulty in neatly categorizing multifaceted talents like his, the 'can't fit him in a box' problem, plays a big part in why figures like him become less anchored in collective memory compared to those known for a single achievement
Another person I never heard of.
If I remember correctly, many famous scientists, like Einstein, Feynman, and others, were also skilled musicians. This brings me to a question I’ve thought about a few times: Does music make them better scientists? Or does being a scientist make them better musicians? Or perhaps excelling in one area naturally helps them be above average in the other?
I have seen this being true in other domains, too, where someone brilliant in one field is very good or equally brilliant in something else. This leads to a question for now, focus on science and music: Do the skills developed through music (like pattern recognition or creativity) directly boost scientific ability? Or is it more about shared personality traits, like perseverance and curiosity, that drive success in both areas?
I do not know the answer, but sometimes, I feel a spillover effect in a play.
That is an astute observation. I looked at IQ and music and could not find any strong correlation - but you are absolutely right about to think of scientists and maybe their ability to focus, perseverance, etc.
I wrote a while back that 'Researchers argue that the cognitive demands of composition parallel those of high-level problem-solving, pattern recognition, and linguistic fluency. From Music and Intelligence https://onepercentrule.substack.com/p/music-and-intelligence
But really like your connection on music and scientists. I will explore that angle - it is a good one.
If you’ve read the book Range (https://tinyurl.com/bddeskkd), it explores the importance of being a T-shaped individual—someone exceptionally skilled in one area (the vertical bar of the T) while having broad general knowledge across other domains (the horizontal bar). It’s a compelling framework for success in today’s complex and interconnected world.
However, I’d argue for a π (pi)-shaped model instead. Being exceptionally good in two areas (the two vertical bars of the π) while still maintaining a solid base of general knowledge offers even greater potential for success. Mastery in two distinct fields creates opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas, fostering creativity, innovation, and unique problem-solving approaches that a T-shape might not fully unlock.
While two verticals seem ideal for balance, I wonder if adding even more areas of mastery would lead to diminishing returns. Could there be a "evolutionary limit" to how many domains we can excel in? Then again, figures like Leonardo da Vinci seem to defy that limit, excelling across multiple fields. Perhaps this is rare, but it raises the question: how many areas of deep expertise can one person realistically master, and does it depend on the individual?
I have not yet - I saw your previous comment on Range, and must read it.
I expect, as you say, achieving the kind of deep mastery needed for either the T or the π requires significant focus and dedicated effort, precisely the kind of deep engagement that we both suggest is becoming harder to sustain in our current environment of constant distraction.
It sounds like a very valuable framework to consider, highlighting the immense rewards of deep expertise, while implicitly underscoring the challenge of achieving it. Thanks for introducing this stimulating π perspective! I will read it.
Your musings on the limits of mastery and the DaVinci example are enduring questions about human potential. My 2 cents, how many areas one can master likely depends heavily on the individual and their circumstances.
I agree that the individual plays a significant role, as without inner drive and curiosity, it isn’t easy to achieve mastery in any field. However, having the means to pursue it also plays an equally important role. Being born to the right parents, having access to resources, or finding the right mentors and teachers can be pivotal. Historically, many great minds benefited from one-on-one mentorship or personalized education, often made possible by privilege or wealth—a luxury that only a small population can afford today. Unfortunately, most people today do not have access to such specialized guidance.
I also believe it was far easier to excel across multiple fields, especially in science, a few hundred years ago than it is today. One of the main reasons is that achieving mastery today requires much deeper specialization. Fields have evolved into several sub-fields and even sub-sub-fields, each requiring significant exploration time and effort. The sheer volume of knowledge in each domain has grown exponentially, making it increasingly difficult for one person to gain expertise in multiple areas.
Additionally, modern education systems are largely designed to prepare individuals for jobs or to pass standardized tests rather than fostering the depth and interdisciplinary thinking required to specialize broadly. In contrast, many famous scientists of the past were taught in ways that encouraged curiosity and mastery of multiple disciplines, often through personalized, one-on-one instruction. This kind of education is rare today, and the systemic focus on employability often discourages students from pursuing deep or broad learning.
That said, I believe one-on-one education is still the best way to learn, and I hope AI will help solve this problem. With the development of AGI or ASI, we may have better opportunities to become proficient in multiple domains. AI could provide personalized mentorship, adapt to each individual's unique strengths and weaknesses, and even integrate knowledge across disciplines, much like the polymaths of the past.
However, this raises an important question: if education no longer leads to meaningful work because most tasks have been automated, what will its purpose be? Perhaps education in such a world will shift toward helping individuals find meaning, fostering creativity, or solving new challenges that arise even in an automated society. This is a topic worth exploring further, but I remain optimistic that AI could transform education and make deep, interdisciplinary learning accessible to far more people.
That is a great connection expanding the discussion from Hofmann's specific case to these crucial themes of mastery, education, and technology. You outline the essential interplay between inner drive and external opportunity perfectly, Hofmann's access to top-tier mentorship and financial support undeniably shaped his trajectory, alongside his innate gifts. Hofmann certainly benefited from via his family, Clark, and Rubinstein.
I think your analysis of why polymathy is harder today is compelling, the depth of specialization required now is immense compared to even a century ago. It makes figures like Hofmann, operating at a high level in disparate fields, seem even more remarkable, perhaps products of a different educational ethos. I agree with your critique of modern education's focus often being narrower than the holistic, mastery-oriented approaches of the past. In fact I strongly agree!
The potential role of AI in education that you outline is fascinating, I am also hopeful about the idea of AI providing personalized, interdisciplinary mentorship at scale is a great vision for overcoming some of the limitations you identified. And it naturally leads to that critical question about education's ultimate purpose when traditional work changes. It's a discussion we certainly need to be having.
I've been working with others on this. Like always, it is some of the university educators that are often the last to react!
My above thoughts are an extension of another comment that I made here: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/where-geniuses-hide-today/comment/80427394. This comment was an extension of one that I made a couple of years back about why we do not produce enough geniuses anymore. Enjoy!
There is so much packed into that comment MG. You have given me much to think about and material ideas for essays - concerning one-on-one tutoring, Bloom showed a 2 sigma improvement through tutoring and greats like Von Neumann had tutors. As did Hofmann. But in my new post I also show how the working class formed community reading groups and clawed their way out of the mines to build a new middle class.
I still believe that tutoring is the best way, and as we discussed before AI will help immensely with this - yet Rose in his book says education was not the most important factor - as one example this quote stands out about teacher training!
"For F. H. Spencer (b. 1872), a Swindon factory worker’s son, mutual improvement provided all the intellectual stimulation he did not receive in teacher training. “The education of a pupil teacher in the eighteen eighties ... was designed to enable a mediocre head master to prepare an unintelligent pupil teacher for a very easy examination. Any lad or girl of energy and intelligence could have passed the fourth-year examination before the end of the first year,” he protested. “In history we just learned facts out of a date-book. And I got some background out of Scott. Geography was a thing of names, meaningless, wearisome names, and our instructor was dull, stupid and conscientious beyond words.” It was a Young Men’s Friendly Society that “liberalised and awakened such mind as I had.” Members debated capitalism and socialism, performed scenes from The Merchant of Venice and The Pickwick Papers. A mix of students, workers, and lower professionals encouraged Spencer to read broadly and trained him in public speaking."
It's very likely to be a reciprocal effect. It's equally true with visual art - Leonardo being the most famous example. A scientific/engineering mindset goes hand in hand with the creative mindset. Indeed, it can easily be argued to be one and the same.
Now that is a very good take, I like it a lot. I will still look at that research on this - I am very intrigued.
Not someone I know, but a beautiful memoir to someone who was unique. It reminds me of a comment my father shared when I was young, "The best investors and scientists tend to be the some of the best musicians as well." This again seems to prove the sentiment.
I wonder who today is similar to Hofmann - someone of unique talent that no one knows about and may not know of until they are gone.
That is a fascinating thought about science and music - I looked at Nobel winners and music a while back, some showed musical ability, but it was not as wide as I thought it might be. But now I am determined to research a bit deeper.
It is a good question - who are the living Hofmann's - I will write about it, if I unearth anything of interest.
Look forward to hearing about any you uncover! Although, perhaps like artists, these people are ahead of their time and we rarely appreciate them in their own period, but only recognize their genius through the lens of history.