Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored • Hacker News Board

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#361

Post by lumost » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:52 AM UTC

throwaway5486nv wrote: post #358

reddog wrote: post #355

I got to wonder how 11 year old Einstein, Von Neuman, Russell or Dawin would have turned out if they had been subjected to all the extremely compelling distractions that modern day kids encounter, aristocratic tutors and all. How much greek and latin would have been learned with a PS5 in the room? How much of Marcus Aurelius would have been read if young Russell had had a Instagram account and a magic glowing rectang…

Distraction is for less focused and less ambitious people. We don't have to look at Einstein level genius. Take a look at the competitive programming the kids there solve puzzles at such speed who are grown in the era of all the distractions. If one can not be genius in this era, there is no way they could have been genius in the past. The other way is not true due to access to knowledge in the past is very much rest…

Alternately, the markers of what makes one a "genius" have changed.

In the past, being a genius meant having enough leisure time to spend learning what was a comparably small body of knowledge. Then spending more of that time expanding that knowledge, ultimately transmitting it through a written or spoken medium to a broad body of people.

Today we often pay attention to raw skill in a field as a proxy for "genius". We applaud a competitive coder, but this may be the modern equivalent to applauding a fast brick layer.

Are we missing the longer/deeper forms of work?

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#362

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:55 AM UTC

throwaway5486nv wrote: post #358

reddog wrote: post #355

I got to wonder how 11 year old Einstein, Von Neuman, Russell or Dawin would have turned out if they had been subjected to all the extremely compelling distractions that modern day kids encounter, aristocratic tutors and all. How much greek and latin would have been learned with a PS5 in the room? How much of Marcus Aurelius would have been read if young Russell had had a Instagram account and a magic glowing rectang…

Distraction is for less focused and less ambitious people. We don't have to look at Einstein level genius. Take a look at the competitive programming the kids there solve puzzles at such speed who are grown in the era of all the distractions. If one can not be genius in this era, there is no way they could have been genius in the past. The other way is not true due to access to knowledge in the past is very much rest…

But without these distractions you might be forced to go and do something else. Even if you weren’t a genius, your hard work might pay off.

It’s so easy to stream what you want to watch. Before, X-Files was only on once a week and video games were expensive and you had to go to the store.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#363

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:59 AM UTC

djur wrote: post #329

mcguire wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not particularly impressed with the quality of the article. The first question that comes to my mind that the article doesn't address is, how many geniuses did humanity miss because education was very, very limited. Second thought: history shows that the vast majority of aristocratically tutored students were very much not geniuses; this article is full of cherry-picking. Third, there's the "Where's Todays Beetho…

I was interested by the "Where's Beethoven" graph, and went to read the original article (which is better, and doesn't actually agree with the idea that it's measuring a decline of genius). I'm kind of astonished that neither article considers the possibility that the effect they're seeing is that opportunity for acclaim doesn't scale with population. The absolute population has more than quadrupled since 1901. If I…

[deleted]

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#364

Post by betwixthewires » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 1:00 AM UTC

hackerfromthefu wrote: post #346

betwixthewires wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the next generation will be able to do the same thing at a whim even in poverty with a little device in their pocket, and not even have to pay for the classes.

Except they will fritter their time on fb and tiktok and the other countless distractions online.

Yeah 90% of them will. It's still exceptional, just not limited to those with connections. That still leaves an order of magnitude more people motivated to learn that didn't have the option to before.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#365

Post by betwixthewires » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 1:01 AM UTC

thfuran wrote: post #315

betwixthewires wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the next generation will be able to do the same thing at a whim even in poverty with a little device in their pocket, and not even have to pay for the classes.

Watching some videos on the internet is not the same thing as being tutored.

I'm not talking about watching videos on the internet. I'm talking about libgen, scihub, MITs entire curriculum for free on the internet, forums and chatrooms to discuss topics with others, and some videos on the internet. And that's just the free ones.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#366

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 1:02 AM UTC

IMTDb wrote: post #357

reddog wrote: post #355

I got to wonder how 11 year old Einstein, Von Neuman, Russell or Dawin would have turned out if they had been subjected to all the extremely compelling distractions that modern day kids encounter, aristocratic tutors and all. How much greek and latin would have been learned with a PS5 in the room? How much of Marcus Aurelius would have been read if young Russell had had a Instagram account and a magic glowing rectang…

Precisely as much as what today's kid are doing. Which means close to none for some, and quite a lot for others. And some discover it from books and some from wikipedia, reddit, YouTube etc. Some kids with use those new resources to create amazing things, and some without any true purpose at all. That was the case yesterday and will be the case tomorrow. There is no reason to believe that humans have fundamentally ch…

[deleted]

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#367

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 1:10 AM UTC

amusedcyclist wrote: post #164

karaterobot wrote: post #91

Most people here are interpreting "genius" as something like "really smart" or "able to make scientific progress". I don't believe that's the author's meaning: he's talking about individuals whose work single-handedly upends our understanding of the world and causes a revolutionary change in thinking. By that definition, making a faster CPU, or a very successful product is not sufficient. By that definition, who are…

Our understanding of the world is so advanced that revolutionary changes are bound to be rarer and when they do happen they're understood by a tiny fraction of the population. In fact most people have absolutely no idea what Einstein did. He was indeed a great scientist, but to the average person Einstein is a just an idea of a genius, they were never touched by his work. I studied physics in undergrad and I barely u…

In fact most people have absolutely no idea what Einstein did

He invented the atomic bomb.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#368

Post by q3 » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 1:15 AM UTC

"If you’re to do anything reasonable in this world, you must have a class of people who are secure, safe from public opinion, safe from poverty, leisured, not compelled to waste their time in the imbecile routines that go by the name of Honest Work. You must have a class of which the members can think and, within the obvious limits, do what they please. You must have a class in which people who have eccentricities can indulge them and in which eccentricity in general will be tolerated and understood. That’s the important thing about an aristocracy. Not only is it eccentric itself—often grandiosely so; it also tolerates and even encourages eccentricity in others." - Aldous Huxley

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#369

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 1:17 AM UTC

DantesKite wrote: post #322

I read the article. I disagree with the premise that there are fewer geniuses today. There are plenty of geniuses, if not more than ever. They just don't all have a deep, cultural impact on the zeitgeist. Take for example the resolution of Fermat's Last Theorem and Poincare's Conjecture. Or the work being done on the Twin Primes problem. This article is probably better situated as an examination of culture. You could…

They just don't all have a deep, cultural impact on the zeitgeist.

I think this is especially true in the sphere of art & culture. The enormous variety of work being churned out by artists and creators-- combined with such easy access-- means that something truly groundbreaking won't be seen by as many people because those other people are drawn to other content, equally incredible, that appeals more to their own interests, making it much harder for something to break through siloed interests to the zeitgeist.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#370

Post by exolymph » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 1:31 AM UTC

fakethenews2022 wrote: post #354

If you look at the sports world, you will see that its equivalent of tutoring is hugely beneficial and is alive and well. The Williams sisters and their father are one obvious example but if you dig deeper, you will see many more examples. Rafael Nadal was tutored by his uncle. Tiger Woods was tutored by his father. Also, look at coaches. They are often the sons and daughters of coaches. Tutoring allows exploring and…

Upvoted, but genetics are a huge confounder here.