I’ve heard that is a separately named derivative of the Matthew Effect where quotes gradually become attributed to their most eminent speaker, regardless of their true origin.
There’s something similar for inventions and discoveries as well.
Darwin didn’t discover evolution; Einstein did not derive the equations for special relativity (or those for general, for that matter), but these scientists’ (re-)interpretations of the underlying material — and the subsequent popularity of their results — is what drives the re-attribution. (My guess.)
Darwin didn’t discover evolution; he elucidated a mechanism — evolution via natural selection — which explained how an unguided process could produce what seemed to require a Designer.
While attributing “evolution” to him may be a bit of a stretch, I don’t really see that as a Matthew Effect, where more and more fame comes to someone already famous:
In the sociology of science, “Matthew effect” was a term coined by Robert K. Merton to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers who are already famous. For example, a prize will almost always be awarded to the most senior researcher involved in a project, even if all the work was done by a graduate student.
Freddo: If you want to reach the mass market you need an equally sized megaphone (or a lot of luck). A push by Oprah will do it, Joe Rogan probably to a lesser extend. Amazons algorithm and star rating have been wokified to the point of uselessness; goodreads fast approaching the same point. Aspiring writers get the advice to build their own internet presence, but that of course is a lot of work by itself. I like the concept of a book bomb where a group of like-minded authors do a push of a new novel.
Felix: And, no mention of romance novels. Aren’t they supposed to be 50% or better of books sold? Sure, there are big name romance writers. A lot of them, if the grocery store is indicative. But. No mention?
Felix: Jim, what are the important, unread books you have in mind?
Albion: As someone who has published a couple of books (independently) on-line I can testify no one reads them much. In a way not a problem as it was more of a hobby, and there is a certain pleasure in getting words down in roughly the right order. But in terms of return for effort, it is barely a penny an hour in all likelihood. As they say, don’t give up the day job. Equally I can go to a library or bookshop, and while there tens of thousands of books available, I know I don’t want to read...
Phileas_Frogg: Jim, Your comment is obviously true, and yet the religion of those Ellis Islanders has managed to intellectually persevere, and indeed dominate, in intellectually rigorous fields, and in particular at the most intellectually rarified branch of the government (SCOTUS is 6 Catholics, 2 Protestants, 1 Jew). It is an odd paradox. I suspect we’re seeing a selection process take place where the less intelligent, curious, and literate Catholics are ending up non-Catholic, while the more...
Jim: Pre-World Wars America was so much more literate than now that it may as well have been another planet. Nor has the displacement of Americans by the descendants of Ellis Islanders helped much.
Jim: No one buys books because no one reads books. There are books of great importance that practically no one has had access to for dozens or hundreds of years now available for free on the Internet Archive, and they have been “viewed” only a handful of times, let alone read. It would be comical were it not so tragic.
David Foster: Does this include books sold for Kindle and other e-readers? Sounds like it doesn’t. Also, I wonder how much more effectively books could be marketed by people outside the publishing establishment.
Phileas Frogg: And yet they continue to furiously, and quietly, ban or hide titles that they consider dangerous as rapidly as ever. Just ask Aleksandr Dugin, Harold Saltzman, or Jean Raspail. Odd.
Bob Sykes: One has to wonder what the aerodynamics of the huge WW II bomber formations were. Often hundreds of large aircraft flew in tight formations. PS. “Twelve O’Clock High” is still one of the best war films ever made.
Bruce: Begun, the drone wars have. Small drones are cheap and effective. Big drones, airplanes, and any static target you can Google is vulnerable. In ‘General Kenney Reports’, Kenney’s memoir of the Pacific War, he mentions Lindberg showing up quasi-illegally. Kenney put the man who babied a single-engine plane across the Atlantic in charge of training P-38 pilots to baby their fuel use, and P-38 ranges doubled.
Bob Sykes: Which is why Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have hypersonic missiles, and we don’t. Not even one successful test. Kunstler is pessimistic: https://kunstler.com/clu sterfuck-nation/pep-talk -on-a-dark-day/#more-216 11′
Gaikokumaniakku: “It’s unusual.” One might say it’s “unwonted.”
Dan Kurt: Re: “Selcouth” is not a word you see every day. It’s unusual. Ok. Strike selcouth and substitute eldritch.
Isegoria: “Selcouth” is not a word you see every day. It’s unusual.
Dan Kurt: To me this post is disconcerting. On reading it I experienced a strong sense that I had read it once before. What a selcouth déjà vu moment.
Gaikokumaniakku: Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter. 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.
Phileas Frogg: Again the eternal conflict between the Real and the Nominal, and once more the Nominal lies. Never forget, lying is an act of aggression, and should always be treated as such. The more egregious the lie, the more aggressive the act. Respond accordingly.
Gaikokumaniakku: Tangentially related: 3M22 Zircon: Debunking Misconceptions. At the link, a military expert criticizes Russian hypersonic weapons.
Phileas Frogg: History is a gift and its study a blessing; even the people whose effects I have come to despise are so obviously superior to our present milieu that one can’t help but feel a sort of scruffy abashedness in the presence of their biographies. And, of course, it gets worse the further back you go. One wonders at the impression a fully fledged Adam in the Garden, before the Fall, would have had on us scampering apes. Darwin got it backwards, we didn’t evolve from an ape-like...
I’ve heard that is a separately named derivative of the Matthew Effect where quotes gradually become attributed to their most eminent speaker, regardless of their true origin.
There’s something similar for inventions and discoveries as well.
Darwin didn’t discover evolution; Einstein did not derive the equations for special relativity (or those for general, for that matter), but these scientists’ (re-)interpretations of the underlying material — and the subsequent popularity of their results — is what drives the re-attribution. (My guess.)
Darwin didn’t discover evolution; he elucidated a mechanism — evolution via natural selection — which explained how an unguided process could produce what seemed to require a Designer.
While attributing “evolution” to him may be a bit of a stretch, I don’t really see that as a Matthew Effect, where more and more fame comes to someone already famous: