> (Einstein's) “miracle year” (...) occurred after he had emigrated from Germany to Switzerland.<p>Does the author even know (or does he just want to hide) that Zurich is in a German-speaking part of Switzerland, and that Einstein surely didn't feel like an "immigrant" there?<p>Isn't it annoying reading how Einstein is used by a lot of writers as an attempt to prove any claim they make?<p>The claim that Freud's "immigrated" is equally absurd. Wikipedia has the name and the location of the place where he was born: "Freiberg in Mähren, Moravia, Austrian Empire." (Now it is in Czech Republic and called Příbor, but it's still the same place). He just grew up some 200 miles southwest from his birthplace, right in the capital of the Empire. His father actually brought him and the family to Vienna as Freud was only 4. He certainly never remembered any other place and went to all schools in Vienna.
The article has the causation backwards: being an immigrant does not make one bold and creative.<p>Instead, people who are bold and creative are more likely to take the risk of packing up their lives for better opportunities.
> Freud is a classic case. As a little boy, he and his family joined a flood of immigrants from the fringes of the Austro-Hungarian empire to Vienna<p>Freud a classic case of immigration? Příbor the fringes of the Austrian Empire? He moved at the age of four 130 miles southwest to the capital. The Austrian Empire included at that point parts of Ukraine. That is hardly immigration, let alone a classic case.<p>> He wore lederhosen and played a local card game called tarock<p>Neither "lederhosen" nor "tarock" is local to Vienna.<p>Sorry Wall Street Journal, but please get your facts straight before writing rubbish. Also, as the article is drawing comparisons to the flow of migrants right now, it should be noted that the current events are not comparable to any of the given examples in the article.
I have a different theory on why this happens, as a potential immigrant myself: it's a giant sorted hash-set.<p>My reason for immigrating is simple: in a developed country I'll make more of a difference with the same amount of effort. My "hash" inclines me to move to developed buckets (and also privileges me with the means to do so). Take Elon Musk as an example. If he attempted to start SpaceX in South Africa (his country of birth) he would have been hemorrhaging capital via the corrupt government tender process. There is also the added problem of a lacking employee pool due to the on-going brain-drain. His "hash" landed him in a developed country and is demonstrably an advantage because of many factors, including the support of the American government.<p>I really don't think that immigration changes people; it's merely a tool that the inspired use to achieve their goals. The anthropic principle could be invoked here in a contrived way.
Having lived in 4 countries for at least 9 months each over the last 5 years, I agree with the conclusion of the article but not necessarily with the underlying reasons. Yes, getting to know a new culture reveals new ways of thinking and behavior that one would otherwise have missed. But I think more critically, leaving another place also frees one from the constraints of that place (be it personally, socially or culturally) It provides opportunity to rethink ones priorities in life and to dare to do things differently
Immigrant does not mean poor. Often immigrants are the most wealthy, connected, and educated people from their countries. Poor people are usually stuck wherever they are.<p>A more accurate title would be: "The Secret of Rich Genius"<p>But it's pretty obvious why the elite have such a huge share of success in all things.
I would say moving to another country itself takes lots of courage, and this can be one of the reasons why some of them can be successful and innovative.
The argument made is a corollary of "openness to experience" indicators for creativity - just, with immigration, once you make the big leap more of the new experiences automatically come to you during ordinary life.<p>If you're already seeing exciting new things happening around you(and they aren't the same exciting new things everyone else sees), you may be getting as much of the effect as needed.
I suspect it has to do also (in the basic idea of the article) to knowing a different way of doing things.<p>Those who are born in one place and keep doing the same things won't know about ways of doing it differently<p>The article seems that it's trying a bit too hard though.
Fusion of different schools of thouht brings unexpected results. Nothing to do with immigration, but highlights how important it is for the academics to communicate outside of their tiny local environments.
they forgot to mention that sometimes an entire nation/city has their head up their ass and pretty much anyone from outside can see it... i'm not referring to anyone in particular, so please, no butthurt...
'Today, foreign-born residents account for only 13% of the U.S. population but hold nearly a third of all patents and a quarter of all Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans.' Nearly a quarter is 15% - not much more than 13%. Sensational writing for a fact that could also be explained by, perhaps, the fact that a large number of people go to the US specifically for education. The 'one third of patents' is more interesting, but even then I have to wonder how much of that is simply people with a dream moving to America to patent their invention and start a business.
I am sure immigration can indeed spark creativity, or at least select for creative people, but the article reads as just a little too click-baity for my tastes.