We can all get rich but to make such a profound and lasting contribution is something more people should open themselves to the idea of doing. Just like anything else it takes hard work and a deep interest - but I believe any person is capable of making these contributions if they do the work, but there's this deep apprehension and notion you need to be a biological genius to do so.
Imagine what the great innovators of the early 20th century could have done if they had access to 3d printers for less than a month's worth of rent, machine learning libraries, personal computers, being able to get information on the majority of studies ever published within a span of minutes or hours, being able to collaborate on open source projects.... we have no excuse not to be doing more of this.
In the end your legacy is the knowledge you leave behind not your family name. In time the name becomes academic knowledge or commonly held trivia, or perhaps immortalized in popular media. The contribution of knowledge is a different thing entirely - for John Nash it lives on every time we use an electronic device, which is essentially 24 hours a day for the developed world.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
> We can all get rich but to make such a profound and lasting contribution is something more people should open themselves to the idea of doing.
I think both of these things -- getting rich and making a profound contribution to humanity -- are very hard, require a lot of luck, and will be achieved by precious few no matter how hard you try. That doesn't mean people shouldn't try, of course.
Since these are all subjective terms I think I can say I agree at least to an extent - earning your own fortune is admirable in my opinion but changing the world through innovation is awe inspiring, god like.
Hard work is one necessary ingredient for achieving an impact equivalent to John Nash's. Others include academic pedigree, financial stability, health, temperament, etc. In general, you need to work hard and be damn lucky.
These things help but of all those, I think the only common factor is the hard work in terms of making revolutionary contributions to science. I can name plenty of greats who lacked some of these other items but I can't think of any who just had it all come easy to them without putting the time in (correct me if I'm wrong which I may be, I have only begun to study the history of innovation)
I've only had a cursory introduction to Nash's work through brief flirtations with game theory, but this is the best explanation i've found so far on Nash's Equilibrium which i still remember vividly for highlighting why a "Socially Optimal Solution" is pretty rare in real life [1] (apologies in advance to the ted-talk averse).
Has anyone got any other good pointers to examples of his work?
P.S.
Can anyone recommend A Beautiful Mind, i'm kinda put off by the description in here which makes it sound very hollywoodised [2]?
It is VERY Hollywood. Alicia his ewife was a hot white college student of his. In real life Alicia was from El Salvador and had a degree from MIT whom he married in 1957 and divorced in 1963 after began being treated for his mental disorder in 1959. in 1970 John became the border of Alica and they eventually remarried in 2001. All of this was missing plus his first son whom he abandoned when he found out his girl friend told him that she was carrying his child whom he believed was below him in society.
I say skip the movie though the graphics of his thought process was really neat.
> Can anyone recommend A Beautiful Mind, i'm kinda put off by the description in here which makes it sound very hollywoodised [2]?
It is quite holliwoodised indeed. As I recall there is not much about the work of Nash in there and a lot about his illness, love life, ... The only part with any maths is the protagonist writing equations on walls.
I find it thought-provoking how often The End comes disguised as a banal accident that could have been avoided with little difficulty (Disclaimer: This is not to instigate a debate about seat belts, it's merely an observation). I always seem to expect that people we feel are somewhat “special” also would have a “special” way of making their exit. And I was reminded again that this expectation has no basis in fact. That the two could leave together and weren't separated in the end was maybe all any-one would wish for in their place.
Imagine what the great innovators of the early 20th century could have done if they had access to 3d printers for less than a month's worth of rent, machine learning libraries, personal computers, being able to get information on the majority of studies ever published within a span of minutes or hours, being able to collaborate on open source projects.... we have no excuse not to be doing more of this.
In the end your legacy is the knowledge you leave behind not your family name. In time the name becomes academic knowledge or commonly held trivia, or perhaps immortalized in popular media. The contribution of knowledge is a different thing entirely - for John Nash it lives on every time we use an electronic device, which is essentially 24 hours a day for the developed world.