Ok. This looks like sound advice.
I am through 1, 2 and 3, I was thinking of learning/going straight for Ketan Mulmuley's geometric complexity theory. So you'd say that's a little misguided approach, right.
1 karma · joined December 31, 2021
I am through 1, 2 and 3, I was thinking of learning/going straight for Ketan Mulmuley's geometric complexity theory. So you'd say that's a little misguided approach, right.
Here's Grothendieck, for example:
“In fact, most of these comrades who I gauged to be more brilliant than I have gone on to become distinguished mathematicians. Still, from the perspective of thirty or thirty-five years, I can state that their imprint upon the mathematics of our time has not been very profound. They've all done things, often beautiful things, in a context that was already set out before them, which they had no inclination to disturb. Without being aware of it, they've remained prisoners of those invisible and despotic circles which delimit the universe of a certain milieu in a given era. To have broken these bounds they would have had to rediscover in themselves that capability which was their birthright, as it was mine: the capacity to be alone.”
I can certainly see this happening: someone away from the pressures of publishing, the drudgery of admin tasks, the frustration of applying for grants or department politics, or the fear of looking "bad" to their peers etc. devoting their time to mathematics out of pure joy, play and drive and coming up with novel definitions and assumptions that those in establishment mathematics, out of pure sociological and psychological reasons, have not even dared venture into.
Like a novel, the reading of an article is meant to be an experience. It follows the "show, don't tell" dictum pretty well. The critique of perfectionism hits at you viscerally, instead of being an academic argument. That good writing necessarily requires a more productive use of audience's time (or follows some economics of the form of insights communicated/time spent), is the optimizing/perfectionist thinking that Ms. Schwartz has taken aim at in her content. So the form follows content in a way. The writer feels that in today's self-improvement culture, we do not appreciate something for its own sake. For example, when we read, we think of "what is it saying? Why does it not say it quickly?", rather than imagining possibilities, chewing on the words of a sentence, or relish the turn of phrases, or appreciating the metaphors employed to communicate a feeling.
You do seem to be right in suspecting that you are wrong about the article. Her concluding paragraph, for example, states that the one should be able to enjoy experiences for their sake alone, rather than the sake of self-improvement. "Things don’t need to be of concrete use in order to have value." This is contrary to the assumptions shared by the two self-help books you allude to: The Shallows and Deep Work. These argue for disconneting FOR the sake of having some value in the dimension of self improvement: for being able to improve the quality of your work (Deep Work), or increasing reading comprehension, e.g. (The Shallows).