SEVEN: THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER I: SIGNIFICANT FIGURES
Establishing the Outer Boundaries of the Population
Finding the important people in different fields is easier because of big biographical dictionaries. These sources, like the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, include many thousands of names. However, a lot of these individuals are not vital to understanding their fields. For instance, in music, some composers are mentioned but did not make a significant impact on Western music. Although there may be undiscovered talents, the detailed information in these reference works probably covers all the important contributors.
Narrowing the Field
To narrow down important figures in a historical field, it’s useful to examine major histories that summarize the material. For example, three significant histories of Western music each list numerous composers. The first, Donald Grout's work, mentions 512 composers, while Lucien Rebatet's lists 643, and a collaboration headed by Kurt Honolka includes 653. Together, they recognize 1,005 unique composers, but many are only cited by one author, indicating personal selection. The most compelling finding is the 295 composers included in all three histories, suggesting they are significant figures. As more sources are added, the number of commonly mentioned composers decreases, while the total number of unique names increases, displaying a method for identifying essential individuals through the percentage of sources that mention them. Finding a balance in selection criteria is crucial for distinguishing between essential and notable figures.
The Aggregate Numbers of People Mentioned in Any and All Sources Level Out Quickly
The total count of people mentioned across different sources tends to reach a steady level quickly. This happens because as more sources are examined, the number of unique individuals becomes consistent. The sources are arranged in order of the number of composers they contain, starting with those that mention the most. As a result, when looking at these sources, it becomes clear that the overall number of people mentioned does not fluctuate significantly after reaching that stable point.
Selecting the Significant
A cutoff point of 50 percent is chosen to identify significant figures for analysis, meaning anyone mentioned in at least half of the qualified sources qualifies. This decision seeks a balance between having a larger sample size, which helps find patterns in data, and ensuring sample stability, which means results should not change much with different sources. Initially, a 20 percent threshold would yield a larger sample, but it could lead to unstable results. The 50 percent cutoff ensures consistent and reliable participants for analysis.
Faux Lotka
Lotka curves consistently represent the distribution of accomplishments, regardless of the data sources used, while the appearance of a falling line can change based on the selected sources. This means that the results can vary significantly if different types of histories are used. A threshold for data comprehensiveness is established, requiring sources to include a minimum number of composers to ensure accuracy. A total of 4,002 significant figures are identified for further analysis in the study.
Brothers, Legends, and Polymaths
Among the 4,002 significant figures listed, nine are pairs of brothers or family members whose contributions overlap, such as the Vivarini family and the Wright brothers. Some figures, like Nicolas Bourbaki, are entirely fictional, while there is debate about the existence of others, like Homer and Shakespeare. The actual number of unique individuals is 3,869, with 116 appearing in multiple categories, mostly in related fields. True polymaths, known for expertise in diverse areas, include Leonardo da Vinci, who qualified in art and science, and Aristotle, noted for his wide-ranging contributions in philosophy and biology. The total count remains a matter of convenience.
What Separates the Significant From the Non-Significant?
The 50 percent rule for determining significant figures lacks a clear distinction between those who qualify and those who do not, making it difficult to argue why some are considered significant while others are not. Many well-known figures, like Clifford Odets and Willa Cather, barely qualify, whereas others, such as Maxwell Anderson and Pearl Buck, despite their achievements, do not. Similarly, names like Duke Ellington qualify, while Cole Porter does not. This narrow margin raises questions about the true significance of borderline cases. Typically, individuals who fail to qualify by larger margins have less impressive résumés than those who make the cut. While popular figures like Dorothy Parker and James Thurber may have some recognition, they are underrepresented in global discussions of literature compared to authors like John Steinbeck and Mark Twain. This suggests that the literary landscape can exist without them. The 50 percent rule also helps exclude those who do not contribute significantly, ensuring that the inventory includes those truly pivotal in their fields, even if many names at the bottom remain largely unknown.
Establishing the Outer Boundaries of the Population
Finding the important people in different fields is easier because of big biographical dictionaries. These sources, like the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, include many thousands of names. However, a lot of these individuals are not vital to understanding their fields. For instance, in music, some composers are mentioned but did not make a significant impact on Western music. Although there may be undiscovered talents, the detailed information in these reference works probably covers all the important contributors.
Narrowing the Field
To narrow down important figures in a historical field, it’s useful to examine major histories that summarize the material. For example, three significant histories of Western music each list numerous composers. The first, Donald Grout's work, mentions 512 composers, while Lucien Rebatet's lists 643, and a collaboration headed by Kurt Honolka includes 653. Together, they recognize 1,005 unique composers, but many are only cited by one author, indicating personal selection. The most compelling finding is the 295 composers included in all three histories, suggesting they are significant figures. As more sources are added, the number of commonly mentioned composers decreases, while the total number of unique names increases, displaying a method for identifying essential individuals through the percentage of sources that mention them. Finding a balance in selection criteria is crucial for distinguishing between essential and notable figures.
The Aggregate Numbers of People Mentioned in Any and All Sources Level Out Quickly
The total count of people mentioned across different sources tends to reach a steady level quickly. This happens because as more sources are examined, the number of unique individuals becomes consistent. The sources are arranged in order of the number of composers they contain, starting with those that mention the most. As a result, when looking at these sources, it becomes clear that the overall number of people mentioned does not fluctuate significantly after reaching that stable point.
Selecting the Significant
A cutoff point of 50 percent is chosen to identify significant figures for analysis, meaning anyone mentioned in at least half of the qualified sources qualifies. This decision seeks a balance between having a larger sample size, which helps find patterns in data, and ensuring sample stability, which means results should not change much with different sources. Initially, a 20 percent threshold would yield a larger sample, but it could lead to unstable results. The 50 percent cutoff ensures consistent and reliable participants for analysis.
Faux Lotka
Lotka curves consistently represent the distribution of accomplishments, regardless of the data sources used, while the appearance of a falling line can change based on the selected sources. This means that the results can vary significantly if different types of histories are used. A threshold for data comprehensiveness is established, requiring sources to include a minimum number of composers to ensure accuracy. A total of 4,002 significant figures are identified for further analysis in the study.
Brothers, Legends, and Polymaths
Among the 4,002 significant figures listed, nine are pairs of brothers or family members whose contributions overlap, such as the Vivarini family and the Wright brothers. Some figures, like Nicolas Bourbaki, are entirely fictional, while there is debate about the existence of others, like Homer and Shakespeare. The actual number of unique individuals is 3,869, with 116 appearing in multiple categories, mostly in related fields. True polymaths, known for expertise in diverse areas, include Leonardo da Vinci, who qualified in art and science, and Aristotle, noted for his wide-ranging contributions in philosophy and biology. The total count remains a matter of convenience.
What Separates the Significant From the Non-Significant?
The 50 percent rule for determining significant figures lacks a clear distinction between those who qualify and those who do not, making it difficult to argue why some are considered significant while others are not. Many well-known figures, like Clifford Odets and Willa Cather, barely qualify, whereas others, such as Maxwell Anderson and Pearl Buck, despite their achievements, do not. Similarly, names like Duke Ellington qualify, while Cole Porter does not. This narrow margin raises questions about the true significance of borderline cases. Typically, individuals who fail to qualify by larger margins have less impressive résumés than those who make the cut. While popular figures like Dorothy Parker and James Thurber may have some recognition, they are underrepresented in global discussions of literature compared to authors like John Steinbeck and Mark Twain. This suggests that the literary landscape can exist without them. The 50 percent rule also helps exclude those who do not contribute significantly, ensuring that the inventory includes those truly pivotal in their fields, even if many names at the bottom remain largely unknown.