My rule of thumb is that anyone who is near the top of any field of human endeavor is going to be super-busy at all times. Otherwise, they probably wouldn’t be where they are.
Disagree with "If I said that the top people in your field, at your experience level, are active participants professional societies, write popular blogs about your industry, get asked to write articles for magazines and regularly speak on conference panels, that's probably a reasonable estimation of what it means to be on top, right?"
That isn't a reasonable estimation of being on top. It's a reasonable estimate of someone who fits into that kind of [rather social] professional circle. Doesn't apply everywhere.
In any esoteric field, you find out who are the top people after you enter, and swim around for a while. The ones with the most exposure are just the ones with the most popular appeal.
I have a friend who is wicked smart. I asked him why he isn't full of ambition. He just doesn't give a frolicking fancy. He feels like he has what he needs. Who is just the opposite? Napoleon. Is there something going on here?
Maybe some top fellow will write about it in Psychology Today.
Perhaps 'early' and 'late' are not as important as the fact that there is a peak - people don't seem to be famous/productive in a sustained way. The 'early' and 'late' is probably continuous, you can peak anytime, but you tend not to hold it.
I don't exactly agree. I think good people who have made a name for themselves or done something of note in their field are hot commodities. It's perfectly normal to be good at your trade and not get a look-in.
I've noticed that the heavily influential people are so busy with what they do that they don't pay attention to their fame. They let other people (who, to put bluntly, often aren't as clever or intelligent) praise them later, often posthumously in a best-selling biography.
We all have a scarcity of time on this planet, and I'm convinced that it's the duty of the excellent to (to quote William and Theodore from the 80s movie) "be excellent".
One of the great insights told to me was that popular people in high school are popular because they spend all their time being popular, to the detriment of their future.
Likewise, crappy people and managers in organizations have one full time job: surviving and defending their positions in the organization, and only performing their jobs enough to survive.
Ah, yes, that was the other implication, which I took for granted. Generally, though, only people in the top X% of anything are worth attention, I think.
perhaps there's a quasi-inverse correlation ... e.g., superstars like sergey don't care about putting in a ton of time to polish up their resume and make it sound all fancy and stuff (they're busy building google in their dorm room), whereas people who are good (but not great) make all sorts of efforts to polish up their resume and look their best.
The advice is not going to apply to the top of the top or even near the top. It's for the other parts of the bell curve.
If you're really good or make money for people (take Lady Gaga as an example) you can get away with anything. But most people or the people that that post is directed to aren't.
As a side note I always wondered why back in the day Bill Gates, when he was the richest man in the world (or near that) always wore a suit to business meetings. I mean you would think he would just do whatever he wanted to. But apparently he still had to answer to "someone" and felt it wasn't appropriate.
My rule of thumb is any job that has any "star" the general public knows and cheer for, don't bet your life's happiness on it. The more glamorous you see the star, the worse off the average person is/the more improbable an average person can make it. For example, rock star, movie star, star chef, star youtuber, star blogger, star athlete, star politician, star Hacker news story, star redditor, star 4chan memer, etc.
I haven't heard of a star lawyer, or star doctor, or star programmer that the general public knows.
I think you’re forgetting natural talent (it is their Acceleration to your velocity), commitment, energy, lack of distractions, luck and so many other things you can’t account for. Feeling left behind is inevitable even if you’re on the top of one field - there are going to be others you’re not at the forefront of. The billionaires pay a ton of money to play tennis/golf for example - ask them how they feel when they watch pga/open events.
The crux of the answer is making peace with getting left behind and constructing meaning where you’re. Or use that as motivation. In a connected world the Jones are way too many in number to match and exceed.
I think we as humans need to and will find the ability to have a thick skin for this. We have had to historically build resistance to various distractions - this is just the latest where all the celebs are very interested in making you feel like they are regular humans as well and what they do is very much achievable for everyone: in short it isn’t and we just need to get with the program.
my uninformed opinion; I wouldn't be surprised if a decent number of celebrities aren't the most hard-working and party a decent amount. 2 things first I'm sure that behind the Aces and hard working underachievers there are those who are famous and don't mind coasting and trusting to luck for long stretches rather then looking for opportunities at every corner. Second having a family and being serious about being part of it probably limits your time significantly but there are those who don't have families or don't invest a decent amount of time in their families.
Human nature. You can be popular, just don't be too popular. You can be rich, just don't be too rich. You can be pretty, just don't be too pretty. You can be... just don't be too...
reply