For each success we hear, we probably can find 99 who did that and never got anywhere. And not all for a lack of talent either!
It's not an all-or-nothing thing. Just because we don't hear about them doesn't mean they weren't successful. Many are great "lifestyle entrepreneurs."
Granted, my sample is skewed, but every single person who decided to strike out on their own. that I know IRL, is making enough money to support themselves and do what they want.
I think it depends on the metric of success, but I'm not sure that "try lots = success". I think the opposite is true, however, "don't try lots <> success". So, for every person who tries lots of things, some are going to succeed, and we hear about them.
Well, I guess the definition of "success" is central here. Ultimately, for me, it is about freedom. If you are free to do what you want within the confines of a job or business, then I would call it success. If you have enough money that you don't have to work to support doing what you want to do, then I would call it success also.
They aren't just ideas. Those are the things you need to try! If you don't like them, then you move to the next. That's exactly what it is all about. The pursuit of those kinds of concepts need to be your passion. Success if what happens when all the factors line up, and your best chance is to do.
But beware, are those ideas of things you enjoy? Or is it ideas for success? If you only do for success, then you are trying to "game the system", and end up doing exactly what you don't enjoy just to be successful. You need to start with the passions, then find success in them. Or rather, your best odds are to find something you can do, and will do, over an over.
I've tried ideas of both kinds. I am "in the ballpark" when it comes to being an engineer. I've tried software, digital hardware, and am trying out more analog circuits now. They are all interesting, and what I do in the future will be supported by what I've done. But what I am missing here is "impact." I want to do something that moves humanity forward in some great leap. Maybe I will just be some small part, but I want to closer to the work that makes the impact. Not just filling in the details of what other people have done.
I guess, I would like to move more into Research & Development rather than Development & Design--though Design is fun.
In a way, if there was a position that allowed Research & Development & Design & Production, that would be the best thing for me. I want really broad creative control over the technology.
Then something/someone else would of replaced them. Someone would of produced the goods. Would it be the same as now? Certainly not but we are actors in the big picture. They just had an idea and tried it, and it worked. The point is that each person pursuing what they do will find their niche. Some will be successful, and we'll note them, but everyone is happier when they pursue what they want.
The trick is knowing what we want.
On the other point (a bit of a tangent)...
I guess it depends on perspective. I'm not sure someone would have replaced the figures I mentioned. This is most definitely a hypothetical question, since the people who did these things
were the people who did these things.
I certainly don't want to give them more credit than they are due, since they were all making extensive use of the work of others in their circles, relied on connections they had, the unique opportunities afforded to them, and plenty of other people in the area giving them support.
With out Darwin's wealth there would have been no Darwin as we know him. Without Lorentz, there would have been no Einstein as we know him, without the policy of audit at his college, Steve Jobs would have had a different future, ...
However, I think economists and others studying aggregate human behavior are realizing that it is the "Black Swans" that really matter. It is the "outliers" and weird phenomenon that move markets and shape the future. That's what makes this sort of thing hard to predict.
The formulas work only until someone "changes the game." Olympic predictions were vastly thrown off by China's effort to explicitly win medals, and the collapse of the Russian Olympic machine.
In the end, we are still only modeling "chaotic" behavior "as if" it was "random." Chaos and randomness are different things, though they share some similarities on the surface.
That's the question... how do we find it? What is it? I wish I could answer that question, for myself or others.
What I do know is that emotional stability really hides it. My projects die when I get down, and feel trapped. I think we share that issue.
I wonder if a younger me could have answered this more succinctly.
When I took my first job, it actually "felt wrong," in that I knew that it was not what I wanted to be doing. But, I figured it was a "good job," making use of the types of things I liked to study. I also thought it would give me "practical experience" in the "real world."
A decade later, I have done a little job-hopping, finished some degrees, but still essentially in the same environment. The environment is comfortable, fairly safe (circuit designers are not easy to find), but soul numbing.