Live data from Hacker News

Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

erikhoel.substack.com

301–310 of 505 posts

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#301

All geniuses were a manufactured product, bar none. Einstein and Newton are products, not individuals, of an ancient marketing campaign. No different from Gaga or Beyonce in the present. Beyonce exists as an idea more so than a person. What is nominally a group of individuals working collectively to solve a problem became attributed to a single person purely for marketing purposes. It is easier for most people to rem…

It's useful to be skeptical of Great Men Theory narratives but I think that you are taking it too far. Yes, we absolutely should avoid overstating the impact of "great men". It usually leads to wrong conclusions & a hyperfocus on the role of individuals as of they were independent of the society around them.

Yet, completely dismissing the possibility of remarkable individuals having very oversized impacts on humanity and history is also extremely diminutive. Yes, they were usually also lucky to be at the right place, at the right time and being surrounded by the right people. But their individual actions/efforts were still crucial catalysts to actually put all of those things together. It would be just as weird to dismiss the impact of individuals in history or science as it is to focus too much on them

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#302
I'm not convinced.

> I think the most depressing fact about humanity is that during the 2000s most of the world was handed essentially free access to the entirety of knowledge and that didn’t trigger a golden age.

We are living in a golden age. The beginning stages of one anyway. Where once a genius needed aristocratic tutoring, now genius is becoming so common that they're not the notable man of their time anymore.

> Think about the advent of the internet long enough and it seems impossible to not start throwing away preconceptions about how genius is produced. If genius were just a matter of genetic ability, then in the past century, as the world’s population increased dramatically, and as mass education skyrocketed, and as racial and gender barriers came thundering down across the globe, and particularly in the last few decades as free information saturated our society, we should have seen a genius boom—an efflorescence of the best mathematicians, the greatest scientists, the most awe-inspiring artists.

This is 100% the case. There are so many brilliant people out of the ~7.5 billion of us that genius just isn't as notable anymore. And that genius, instead of resulting in household names like Einstein, results in the marvelous modern world we live in. We see the evidence of it every day in our day to day lives. It's easy to lose perspective on this because it's the every day world to us, but the way we live today is just not the way we did even 30 years ago, not to mention 70.

I can name some great thinkers alive today, right now, and recently dead, in all sorts of fields from philosophy to mathematics to hard science. Peter Shor. Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, I'm sure anyone in this thread can name 10 more. There are unsung geniuses right now working for all sorts of companies, or just tinkering away anonymously in their bedrooms at their desktop computers. Just wait til the information availability afforded us by the internet breaks the institutional education system and begins producing scores of self taught polymaths and specialists at home. That's what the younger generation is going to live through.

Art: you can right now find with simple internet searches art made by artists that is mind blowingly wonderful with infinite scrolling. Of course 90% of everything is crap, but I guarantee you can find excellent art of all kinds in seemingly endless supply by people you've never heard of within 5 minutes of reading this if you try.

Its just good ol days nostalgia to me. A time when information availability was monopolized and bottlenecked of course will only produce a handful of notable people. When that bottleneck is gone as it is now they're just not as notable, and that is a good thing for them, us and everybody, except maybe the ones that controlled information flows before.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#303
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…

People keep saying how fast flight evolved, such that a person was alive both for Wright brothers and landing on the Moon. We live in a similar (or even higher) acceleration now, with a lot of us born during floppy disks, magnetic tapes and punch cards and we're witnessing having the entirety of world knowledge in our pockets, anywhere in the world, for free!

> We live in a similar (or even higher) acceleration now, with a lot of us born during floppy disks, magnetic tapes and punch cards and we're witnessing having the entirety of world knowledge in our pockets, anywhere in the world, for free!

I've been here (old enough to at least meaningfully spectate) for almost all of the Internet revolution and for all of the Web's history, and that what's available online is still really far from "the entirety of world knowledge", most of the parts that matter aren't free, and that what is there is horribly poorly-organized and poorly-presented, is part of why I'm pessimistic on the whole technological-progress-as-meaningful-progress thing.

A huge proportion of the intellectual value of the free (as in beer) Internet is tied up in a single book and academic paper piracy website. A half-decent academic library still crushes the Web, and it's not even a close contest, if you only count legally-distributed free (to the user) material. This should not be the case, but it is.

We've seen about three decades of the Web's promise squandered by broken social structures, laws, and economic incentives. Web-native material remains anemic and largely secondary. The Web's promise as a repository of knowledge and computers in general's utility as teaching tools remain, as far as I can tell, badly under-explored, without much sign of improving soon.

We should have an entire, hard-to-beat-by-any-means edutainment-heavy curricula (plural) by now, so engaging it's hard to get kids to stop learning and go ride a bike. Instead, that space has been, at best, treading water since back when I was its target audience. We have institutions that could push these uses, open interoperability between platforms, free interactive materials organized in a useful way, et c., and which have the money to at least make a good attempt at it, but they mostly rest on their laurels and collect pay checks (Wikimedia Foundation, Firefox, that kind of thing) or are just bizarrely uninterested (governments—gee, wouldn't any amount of serious work on that front have been hugely helpful in the last couple years?). The best we have is something like Khan Academy, a better-than-nothing but still sadly-limited marriage of video lectures and multiple choice tests. There's Youtube, but little of even the best material there's good for actual learning versus the illusion of having learned, and some of the best of it's just recorded lectures (Strang, say) which are great and all, but... is that all we've got? All we've done with the capability we have now?

"VR's coming and that'll change everything", says someone, I'm sure. Nah, it'll be more of the same. Why would we use that to anything resembling its real potential when we haven't with gestures about this?

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#304
Not necessarily the point the article is making, but it remind me of a quote I once heard, which I liked and jotted down.

"There is often a mentality in the workplace that with sufficiently detailed protocols and procedures, the village idiot can perform theoretical physics just as well as Einstein.

In fact, no amount of procedure will make that happen; quite the contrary, all that procedure ensures is that if you ever do hire Einstein, their output will closely resemble that of the village idiot."

Paraphrased from a slashdot comment, originally in the context of agile programming (https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12210032&cid=5675766...)

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#305
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really seeing a lot of innovation? The last technological breakthrough was the smartphone. We still don't have space stations that can accommodate more than a half dozen people (spoiler: I want to live on Cloud City). We don't have Moon colonies. We don't have 3D holograms (not the ones that rely on spinning a stick really fast and using a projector). We still don't have a cure for any type of cancer. No warp…

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 ability for mitumba in a village outside of Nairobi to whip out a little device in his pocket and learn anything his mind can conjure up a desire to learn and speak with any human being on the earth they'd like is not a small development compared to air conditioning, airplanes and plastics. And it's not an abstract academic example, a few weeks ago I video chatted with a real Masai warrior who I've never met, because my friend was casually catching up with family overseas.

And 15 years ago is not that big of a timeframe, it was ~50 years between first powered flight and men stepping on the moon. The kids born with cheap access to all the worlds information are going to do things with their minds that you and I cannot imagine yet. They're going to organize in novel ways and nobody can stop them.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao There are probably a couple working at Tesla and SpaceX but Elon gets all the credit, he could still be one of them, I don't know enough about their process. Maybe a few people in the biotech industry, I wouldn't know about them but the innovation there with crispr and mrna vaccines and other things seems quite crazy and cool

He was also aristocratically tutored, learning mostly at home (first from his parents and then from a litany of professional mathematicians who tutored him in what they were interested in) and then speeding through classes all the way through undergrad.

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.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#307
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that - it's that the competition is now the scale of the planet. Back in the day, if you made it in print somewhere, you were officially an intellectual of some prestige. Then it became about access to radio. Then it was all about reaching TV. All these channels were very limited, so just by getting there one could ensure they had a position among the officially recognised elite. Now one is competing wi…

> Now one is competing with a literally infinite amount of channels I know this is a losing cause, but you either mean figuratively or you're wrong. The more important part: what about the cited evidence that, correcting for other factors, "aristocratic tutoring" does make a difference in achievement?

For all practical purposes, it is literally infinite. You won't be able to go through the entirety of YouTube in a single lifetime, and that's just one channel of distributed knowledge. And new channels appear every day, somewhere on the global network. The firehose will never stop, the network is effectively an infinite source of content.

> what about the cited evidence that, correcting for other factors

I think the evidence is flimsy that "the other factors" can realistically be corrected for. In terms of access to resources, networking chances, free time etc etc, the aristocrats of the past would have been effectively unbeatable regardless of education methods. They could have powered through the infamous 10,000 hours in a couple of years, without any tutoring, to then spend the rest of their lives getting recognised as geniuses by a minuscule audience of a few hundred individuals - whose opinion determined everybody else's view of them, effectively unchallenged.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#308
This is why I want UBI for my fellow man. So that people can more easily persue academia and personally funded research and development. We need more minds at work to innovate our way out of many messes that are converging at the intersection of a burgeoning population.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#309
post #27

We don't have Einsteins because the brightest people don't work on astrophysics because there's no money in it. Instead, they're figuring out how to use AI to sell more dick pills and artfully distressed furniture to people devoid of erections and taste on the goddamn Internet, for more money in a year than Einstein saw in a decade.

> We don't have Einsteins because the brightest people don't work on astrophysics because there's no money in it. Einstein worked in a patent office from 1902-1909. In 1905 he published four papers on the photoelectric effect (laying the way for quantum physics), Brownian motion (proving the existence of atoms), special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy (leading to atomic energy). From the beginning…

I do think so. I think wealth disparity has enabled intellectual folks to, very quickly, propel themselves into the upper class, by essentially being part of the money machine that keeps rich people rich (hedge funds, ads, etc.). I don’t have any data to support this but I believe this was literally impossible before some decades ago. Certainly was not available to Einstein.

More evidence: people literally write songs about wanting/making money and this is acceptable in our culture. We live in a disgusting age.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#310

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…

Definitely John von Neumann was one. Argument could be made that he was even smarter
Post reply on HN