Einstein is wrong. Here’s why.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I disagree. (And I have quotes and late-night logic to back me up!)
Let’s look at another perspective on repetition from legendary music producer Rick Rubin:
I’m very much of the school of recording more than less. And I always request that artists overwrite. Write as much as possible—and then we can narrow down—because you never really know. The best song you write might be No. 25, not No. 12. For every System of a Down record, we’ve recorded probably 30 songs to get the 12 or 14 that are on the record. The same with Chili Peppers.
And another from content site Upworthy on how to write heading that makes content go viral:
1. You HAVE to crap out 25 headlines for every piece of content.
2. You WILL write some really stinky headlines.
3. Once you start getting desperate, you start thinking outside the box.
4. So you HAVE TO WRITE 25 HEADLINES.
5. #24 will suck. Then #25 will be a gift from the headline gods and will make you a legend.
6. Accept that not every headline will be perfect.
7. Then write 25 headlines
And finally, an excerpt from a Vassar statistics textbook:
By the time you reach a sample size of N=30, the shape of the distribution of sample correlation coefficients is virtually identical to that of a normal distribution.
In lay-man’s terms, if you take a sample size of at least 30 from a population, the results of that sample should be representative of the population as a whole.
Repetition of at least 30 seems to be a key factor in guaranteeing representative output from a given population.
A population could be an artist’s songs (like Rick Rubin) or a journalist’s potential headlines (like Upworthy).
It becomes an interesting thought experiment when you define populations broadly.
If you date 30 people, have you statistically met as good as a sexual counterpart as possible? If you create 30 mock ups of your website, have you explored all statistically likely versions?
So is 30 repetitions the magic formula for success?
Let’s ask Thomas “I-invented-the-light-bulb-you-mofos” Edison:
I haven’t failed. I’ve just found 10,000 things that don’t work.
Unfortunately, success is not normally distributed.
The time-tested truth is that success isn’t formulaic or predictable (much to venture capitalists’ chagrin).
There is comfort to be had, however.
Assuming your chance of success is non-zero (aka you’re optimistic), all you have to do is work hard.
Success = hard work (repetition) and optimism (non-zero chance of success).
It makes sense. Your chance of success is some ratio where X number of successes occurs out of Y attempts. X is known. It’s 1. Better get to work on determining Y.
Practically speaking, you never know which investor will say yes, which spouse will accept your advances, which song you write will be a hit, or which headline will go viral.
I find this outlook especially germane in the land of start ups, where success is, on all counts, an outlier.
Despite what Einstein says, leaning on optimism and hard work is really the only sane thing to do when looking for success.
Your chances of hitting it big might still be slim, but with hard work they’re better. Lloyd has the right approach: