Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#31

Post by vowelless »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #14

What's interesting is that the great innovations of the early 20th century, weren't by a diverse group of people. Eastern European Jews (of which Einstein was a member) produced a disproportionate amount of those discoveries. This was despite the fact that they were among the most persecuted groups in history. Because of this, I don't think that US government policy is the major reason for the differences in the arti…

They were among the most repressed human being on Earth. The entire Jewish population is still recovering from the Holocaust (based on global population level).

I often fear when researchers like the NYT author start conditioning on unchangeable characteristics like ethnicity and gender. It invariably implies a villain based on unchangeable characteristics like ethnicity and gender.

The classification of "Jews" has been the most innovative. Should we start making laws conditioned on someone being a Jew so that's non jews can become more innovative ? Does this not sound like a bad idea? (I am trying to dodge godwins law)

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#32

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

api wrote: post #20
jerkstate wrote: post #18

How does this jive with the Silicon Valley trope that ideas aren't worth very much in and of themselves, but the people and teams who can execute on them are?

That trope is sort of bullshit. Both matter. It does apply when the idea is some kitschy social media thing but not so much when it's a real key innovation.

The problem is we don't have much of a theory of innovation.

Google beat AltaVista etc because of execution, not because page ranking was the most amazing invention in history.

But to get to Google you need a trail of gamechanger innovations in science, physics, and math. All those innovations were created by individual geniuses armed with a pen, some paper, a brain, and maybe some discussion with other geniuses.

At that level, ideas don't need to be executed with a commercial strategy and a website, because they're more abstract and far more powerful than a startup. In fact they create an envelope in which new kinds of execution become possible.

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#33

Post by sidibe »

djrobstep wrote: post #2

Equality of opportunity is a terrible concept. Even if we somehow solve it, it would just be shuffling people up and down the ladder of an unfair system. Instead, we should be dismantling the ladder. Real equality means equality of outcomes. Most people who talk about "equal opportunity" do so because they want to avoid talking about real equality and its implications.

The best goal is to have a steadily increasing minimum outcome.

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#35

Post by tudorw »

camillomiller wrote: post #34

I’m a bit bothered by how society == USA, and that’s it. There’s a world outside of USA, with people inventing things and helping society. Maybe it’s time we start thinking more globally, instead we’re just at globalized thinking.

I can understand that feeling, when I clicked I thought it was going to be about somewhere else, the Sudan, or Congo maybe, those places where genius is snuffed out hour by hour.

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#37

Post by drewmate »

camillomiller wrote: post #34

I’m a bit bothered by how society == USA, and that’s it. There’s a world outside of USA, with people inventing things and helping society. Maybe it’s time we start thinking more globally, instead we’re just at globalized thinking.

There is certainly a place for a discussion of issues at a national level. While the Times certainly covers issues of international import, it is most likely to affect policy (or influence individuals) at the US level.

In addition, while the statistics and research reflect the situation in the US, the principles are still relevant to other countries and the world as a whole. There is work to be done in strengthening social networks and role models for people everywhere. Might as well start at home (wherever that may be.)

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#38

Post by musage »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #14

What's interesting is that the great innovations of the early 20th century, weren't by a diverse group of people. Eastern European Jews (of which Einstein was a member) produced a disproportionate amount of those discoveries. This was despite the fact that they were among the most persecuted groups in history. Because of this, I don't think that US government policy is the major reason for the differences in the arti…

Einstein was born in Southern Germany, with ancestors that had been there for centuries. German Wikipedia describes his family as "assimilated, non-orthodox, Jewish-German middleclass" and quotes him as being grateful to his town of birth, Ulm, for part of his character. English WP says "The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews", and he got the arguable most important part of his education in Switzerland where he moved to early on.

He was already traveling the world and giving lectures well before the rise of the Nazis, and he "simply" didn't return to Germany when they were in power. I can't speak for him, but I would assume he would consider himself as having had a good life with ample opportunities. The Nazis simply didn't even have a chance to persecute him, if anything the FBI made a huge dossier on him for his socialist views, though even that wasn't really persecution of the kind you ascribe to him by mere association. He had plenty opportunities, he wasn't born poor and certainly not Eastern European. I can't even begin to guess where you have any of that from, but it's not from the actual life of the actual person. And if that's the only reason you think the article is mistaken, then you don't have a (valid) reason.

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#39

Post by djrobstep »

sewer_bird wrote: post #8
djrobstep wrote: post #2

Equality of opportunity is a terrible concept. Even if we somehow solve it, it would just be shuffling people up and down the ladder of an unfair system. Instead, we should be dismantling the ladder. Real equality means equality of outcomes. Most people who talk about "equal opportunity" do so because they want to avoid talking about real equality and its implications.

Equality of outcome's implication is a culture engaging in an authoritarian and quixotic pursuit of perfect human misery. It is hard enough to ensure a specific outcome for yourself, let alone another, and even less so to make two people come out exactly the same. Equality of opportunity at least acknowledges that culture produces winners and losers.

Dying in the gutter because you can't afford health insurance seems pretty miserable to me. Working at Walmart for minimum wage to make Sam Walton's useless children richer seems pretty miserable to me.

There are many well proven ways to make people more equal, strong government welfare programs being one. They are very straightforward.

Culture doesn't make people winners and losers, a brutally enforced system of authoritarian capitalism does.

Re: Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing

#40

Post by musage »

vowelless wrote: post #24

> I encourage you to take a moment to absorb the size of these gaps. Women, African-Americans, Latinos, Southerners, and low- and middle-income children are far less likely to grow up to become patent holders and inventors. I know the author uses patents as a proxy for innovation. But is it really a valid proxy? Do we want to maximize innovation or do we want to maximize patent holdings? Why not remove patents and co…

Einstein did patent inventions, around 50 are known. He also worked at a patent office for 7 years. I think you still have a point, I also don't think patents necessarily equal innovation, but Einstein simply is not the best example for it.
Post reply on HN