Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored • Hacker News Board

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#201

Post by gotaquestion » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

dav_Oz wrote: post #161

alx__ wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been reading Chuck Klosterman's book, But What If We're Wrong?. Which is partly that thought. The things that get remembered in the global consciousness are not always the people or things we'd expect. It's possible that we have a "genius" right now that will be remembered in 100 years. But due to all the local noise it's hard to see through that and remain objective. Basically we're really terrible at guessing what…

I would argue that is actually the norm. The more I dig deeper into the history of any field the more I realize how many publicly unknown geniuses there are. Mostly only recognized and praised as such by the connoisseurs of the respective field. And it makes sense, especially in our times, sophisticated PR (and Einstein enjoyed that, too, in addition in being a genius ) just trumps any recognition one might get in a…

I think there isn't enough distinction in the term "genius". How do you even compare their contributions? It is easy when you have someone like Euclid or Newton, who's work is taught in pre-college grades. Who is the last person to have an impact on pre-collegiate math syllabi? It's been centuries. Then you look at someone like Einstein who was discussed in every major magazine and newspaper at the time his general theory was articulated. I think Hawking got the similar treatment, but has he impacted what is taught in 4-year college the way Einstein did? I think Hawking's genius is too esoteric.

There needs to be a new term. "Genius" is too limp to describe individuals who radically alter the curriculum taught to undergraduate students.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#202

Post by jaegerpicker » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

pharke wrote: post #112

xoserr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't innovating like we use to and it isn't even close. We are just such a histrionically ignorant society that has lowered the bar on innovation so we can pretend that we are a society innovating at lighting speed. The smartphone was 15 years ago but we act like it was yesterday. 1900-1910ish we got air conditioning, plastics, airplanes, motion pictures, the Theory of Relativity.. We are just so clueless now. E…

The smart phone doesn't even belong in the same category as the others you listed. The digital computer certainly does but it's been 80 years since that occurred. The smartphone is simply a refinement of that basic technological leap. Practically everything people are listing here falls in the category of refinement of existing technology rather than a completely novel form of technology. That is the scary and correc…

That's ridiculous, the smartphone has changed society far more than desktop's or really any form of computer that exists. Vast numbers of people only access the internet via a smart phone. Doctor's visits across the globe, remote working from wherever you are, hand held GPS and maps, access to countless hours of entertainment, etc....

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#203

Post by lkrubner » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

wcarron wrote: post #192

I think the author has got it mainly correct. There exists a perfect analog to this 'genius problem' in plain sight: Architecture. Back in the day, especially the art-deco era, buildings were adorned with beautiful facades and friezes and carvings. They had style and substance and actual design. Today, all you get are construction companies shitting out glass-paned bricks with shoddy materials, poor usability conside…

Back in 2010, I was invited to a party in a building down at the south end of Manhattan. We were 4 blocks from Wall Street. It was a new building, my friend had just moved in. The building was for the "$400,000 a year working stiffs" of Wall Street, but that line is from 1987 (the movie Wall Street) and nowadays they all make a few million a year.

I was surprised by the relatively poor quality of the building. All the walls were covered with carpeting, but the carpeting was falling off in some places. Some of the light fixtures hung awkwardly slanted from their slots. The door knob (of the apartment) was very cheap and was already showing signs of wear.

Keep in mind, this was a new building, built for wealthy people.

Something feels broken about this culture, where even the rich cannot buy nice things any more.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#204

Post by JackFr » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:49 PM UTC

shubb wrote: post #43

hans1729 wrote: post #5

This is ridiculous. We’re seeing innovation EVERYWHERE, and looking back, this will be a golden age for progress (if the species makes it far enough to look back, that is). Think of it like this: we invented personal computers. At the time, only nerds had access to computation. These days, all kinds of scientists just script up things in python. We have how many million people who are able to code? I don’t even care…

One really major innovation is that we have developed the capacity to do experiments at a massive volume physically, and are just - with the big data revolution - developing the capability to understand these data volumes and translate them into findings. Whereas science used to be done in a relatively small number of labs, with little communication between countries - there are now thousands of universities and comm…

> Whereas science used to be done in a relatively small number of labs, with little communication between countries - there are now thousands of universities and commercial labs in every developed country doing research. And that research uses machines that measure thousands of variables at high speed.

And the median value of that reasearch is zero.

There is literally too much research being done. Because of perverse incentives (in both academia and industry) there are a fair number of results that are not useful along with some which are simply wrong. I believe we could easily cut off the bottom half of the research being done and the appreciable impact would be to increase the sum total of knowledge of the species.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#205

Post by TigeriusKirk » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:49 PM UTC

hans1729 wrote: post #103

Beltalowda wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change is not going to wipe out the human species, but it will cause a large amount of economic upheaval, migration, and things like that. Not exactly the sort of circumstances that are conducive to progress. Then there are many political reasons; the internal politics of many western countries are kind of in a stalemate, and have been for quite some time. It all keeps working for the time being, but it seems…

>Once this kind of infrastructure for progress gets compromised then things will become very hard. I think of it differently: it already did. The old world is already dead. It will just take a couple of generations until that realization kicks in, or until the consequences of that realization are implemented in our cultures and systems. The political incentives in western democracies are not aligned with the interest…

I just want to say it's incredibly refreshing to read comments from someone looking at the big picture and providing thoughtful optimism about where things are headed.

Thank you for your comments.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#206

Post by mtalantikite » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:49 PM UTC

johnNumen wrote: post #109

mtalantikite wrote: post #73

"Is there anyone who died in the last decade you could make that sort of claim for?" Sure, Toni Morrison. Whitney Houston. Prince. Steve Jobs (slightly over a decade). I don't know, the list goes on? There are plenty of culture shifting geniuses among us. It just doesn't look the same as it did in the 19th and early 20th century.

None of those people are geniuses.

If Beethoven is on that list, so is Prince. If Thomas Hardy is on that list, so is Toni Morrison. Mozart could write a 5 voice fugato, and Quincy Jones can score out an orchestration without even sitting at a piano.

There is no shortage of exceptional people changing how we think about and interact with the world. Again, it just doesn't look the same as it did in the past. You might not like them -- I really don't care for Thomas Hardy's writing and Freud is largely cast aside these days -- but that doesn't mean they aren't geniuses.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#207

Post by JackFr » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #105

hans1729 wrote: post #5

This is ridiculous. We’re seeing innovation EVERYWHERE, and looking back, this will be a golden age for progress (if the species makes it far enough to look back, that is). Think of it like this: we invented personal computers. At the time, only nerds had access to computation. These days, all kinds of scientists just script up things in python. We have how many million people who are able to code? I don’t even care…

Where is my Flying Car, Where is my Space Tourism, Where is my Space Colony, Where is my Underwater Colony, Where is my Cheap Plentiful Environmentally friendly Energy Generation / Storage it seems to be we are stuck, we are improving current technology, but we have not created new technology in a long time, Sure computers got smaller and more powerful but that is just iteration of the same design.. We need another m…

You got communicators and tricorders instead. You're welcome.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#208

Post by regularfry » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

gilbetron wrote: post #7

I completely disagree with the premise, that geniuses are vanishing - I think we have more than ever, it just takes a lot more to make notable progress these days. However, the article still ended up being a decent read, exploring how a lot of geniuses had tutors. I think our education system is messed up in a lot of ways, and we'd have a better society if kids got more adult attention. Saying this as a parent of a m…

I think there's something in this. The "where's today's Beethoven" chart would be completely explained either by an actual decline, or by it becoming harder to be rated a genius against contemporaries over time. And that itself is mostly a numbers game too: the human population now is 7 times larger than it was at Beethoven's death. Vienna's population (relevant since we're talking about Beethoven) was about 200,000 then, but it's 9 times that now. If part of the qualification to be remembered as a genius is notoriety and publicity, which it must be, then because it's much more crowded at the top it's more than likely that all the individuals currently of Beethoven's absolute talent level are thought of as merely "extremely good", not "genius", precisely because they don't break away from the pack and individually dominate the field.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#209

Post by yakubin » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #195

yakubin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no single thing that makes a song interesting or memorable, but technical proficiency is one of factors. Of course, I don't think that being "at the top" in technical proficiency makes a song any better than being just among a broader set of "best performers", but autotune makes people sound flat, generic, robotic, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum. That it doesn't contribute positively to a song…

Does a trumpet with a straight mute contribute positively to a song? Compared to an unmuted trumpet it has reduced dynamic control and a flattened, generic timbre. But using them is common, and the distinctive sound is a key part of many well-known musical passages. The technical proficiency of a trumpeter is completely orthogonal to whether they use a mute on a particular piece, since it is just a simple hardware te…

You make it sound as if pop singers used autotune selectively, judging when it's better than natural technique. I wrote my comment in the context of large swaths of pop singers who use autotune indiscriminately in all their songs, throughout. (At least that's my impression from songs recommended to me by YouTube in incognito mode.) Now show me an acclaimed pianist who keeps their foot down on a single pedal throughout all their performances. I'd be surprised if the most common motivation for using autotune wasn't being unable to hit the right notes.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#210

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

gotaquestion wrote: post #201

dav_Oz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that is actually the norm. The more I dig deeper into the history of any field the more I realize how many publicly unknown geniuses there are. Mostly only recognized and praised as such by the connoisseurs of the respective field. And it makes sense, especially in our times, sophisticated PR (and Einstein enjoyed that, too, in addition in being a genius ) just trumps any recognition one might get in a…

I think there isn't enough distinction in the term "genius". How do you even compare their contributions? It is easy when you have someone like Euclid or Newton, who's work is taught in pre-college grades. Who is the last person to have an impact on pre-collegiate math syllabi? It's been centuries. Then you look at someone like Einstein who was discussed in every major magazine and newspaper at the time his general t…

> Who is the last person to have an impact on pre-collegiate math syllabi?

Shrodinger, maybe? He is a really large part of the reason people study matrices before college, and then go and complain because nobody can show them a use for the thing.