论文标题
创意职业的成功很少取决于产品质量
Success in creative careers depends little on product quality
论文作者
论文摘要
在最近的文章Janosov，Battiston和Sinatra中报道说，他们将人才和运气的投入分开了。它们建立在Sinatra等人的先前作品的基础上，该作品引入了Q-Model。在模型下，文化不同元素的普及是两个因素的产物：一个随机因素和qfactor或人才。后者是针对个人的，但随机分布在不同的人之间。这样，他们解释了一些人如何始终如一地产生高影响力的工作。他们从有关其工作的统计数据中为不同的科学家，作家和电影制作人提取Q因子。但是，在他们的文章中，他们不情愿地指出，书籍和电影的受欢迎程度与质量评级之间几乎没有相关性（相关系数为0.022和0.15）。我分析了原始Q因子文章的数据，并获得了基于引用的Q因子和诺贝尔奖的奖项仅为0.19。我还简要回顾了一些其他实验，这些实验发现流行与文化产品质量之间的相关性微不足道，有时甚至是负相关。我得出的结论是，如果与高Q因子具有相关的能力，它应该更多的是营销能力，而不是生产高质量产品的能力。 Janosov，
In the recent article Janosov, Battiston, & Sinatra report that they separated the inputs of talent and luck in creative careers. They build on the previous work of Sinatra et al which introduced the Q-model. Under the model the popularity of different elements of culture is a product of two factors: a random factor and a Qfactor, or talent. The latter is fixed for an individual but randomly distributed among different people. This way they explain how some individuals can consistently produce high-impact work. They extract the Q-factors for different scientists, writers, and movie makers from statistical data on popularity of their work. However, in their article they reluctantly state that there is little correlation between popularity and quality ratings of of books and movies (correlation coefficients 0.022 and 0.15). I analyzed the data of the original Q-factor article and obtained a correlation between the citation-based Q-factor and Nobel Prize winning of merely 0.19. I also briefly review few other experiments that found a meager, sometimes even negative, correlation between popularity and quality of cultural products. I conclude that, if there is an ability associated with a high Q-factor it should be more of a marketing ability than an ability to produce a higher quality product. Janosov,
