lol it really does sound like that, but that's Germany of the time...
What's weird is that he acknowledges education should be traditional and on the strict side, following old paths along classics, ethics, etc. and eventually the child "actualizes" himself through that process, etc. Which is a normal intuitive sort of view to have. But when greatness comes into it, it's usually collaborative, or on a frontier, or it reconciles old ideas or technologies in some way, or that person is just the best with developing on the latest fad and gives it some staying power. Or more cynically, they had the richest benefactor. It's kind of difficult to be sideways to public opinion and be recognized as great. The public usually comes along with you and the people who are helping you.
Orwell fits, maybe?
Yes, I read a great book on this. The Pasteurization of France. It is like sociology of science. How microbiology has been pinned on one man. France promoted him. And the guy starts by saying, like Tolstoy, never trust the French side of anything. You can see how this runs into Tolstoy through his version of history, which is similar to Hegel's. That we reduce wars to one man. Like Napoleon. All men on that battlefield are responsible. This complex event is reduced to one man.
The
Matthew effect of accumulated advantage, described in
sociology, is a phenomenon sometimes summarized by the adage that "
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
[1][2] The concept is applicable to matters of fame or status, but may also be applied literally to cumulative advantage of
economic capital.
The concept is in two of the
Parables of Jesus in the
synoptic Gospels (Table 2, of the
Eusebian Canons).
The concept concludes both synoptic versions of the
parable of the talents:
For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
—
Matthew 25:29,
RSV.
I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
—
Luke 19:26,
RSV.
The concept concludes two of the three synoptic versions of the parable of the
lamp under a bushel (absent in the version of Matthew):
For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away
—
Mark 4:25,
RSV.
Take heed then how you hear; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.
—
Luke 8:18,
RSV.
The concept is presented again in Matthew outside of a parable during
Christ's explanation to his disciples of the purpose of parables:
And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."
—
Matthew 13:11–12,
RSV.
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.
[3][5] 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. This was later formulated by
Stephen Stigler as
Stigler's law of eponymy – "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer" – with Stigler explicitly naming Merton as the true discoverer, making his "law" an example of itself.
Merton furthermore argued that in the scientific community the Matthew effect reaches beyond simple reputation to influence the wider communication system, playing a part in social selection processes and resulting in a concentration of resources and talent.
He gave as an example the disproportionate visibility given to articles from acknowledged authors, at the expense of equally valid or superior articles written by unknown authors. He also noted that the concentration of attention on eminent individuals can lead to an increase in their self-assurance, pushing them to perform research in important but risky problem areas
A good example is Richard Dawkins. He is cited so much on evolution, specifically The Selfish Gene, even though he just popularized the concept. That initial cumulative advantage has allowed him to maintain a career and be relevant in science without actually doing anything.
