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…
Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
81–90 of 505 posts
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#82However, I think I essentially agree with the importance of tutoring and 1-on-1 attention for nurturing potential 'genius'. John von Neumann is a fantastic example, but perhaps more obviously illustrative is Susan Polgar and her father's explicit attempt (and success) in creating a chess genius. Susan Polgar is the greatest female chess player of all time by a gigantic margin, and it would be hard to deny it's the result of Laszlo Polgar's efforts from her young age to make her so, especially given the success of her siblings.
His teaching wasn't mind blowing. It stressed cultivating passion, presenting progressively more difficult problems to the student, but with everyday consistency for over a decade.
However he was an excellent teacher (that being his main profession), and skilled at chess himself (although not as good as his daughters would be), something most parents aren't likely to be for a given field they wish to inculcate greatness for their child in. Accessibility of this simple yet difficult program is unlikely to be accessible to most people then.
Perhaps we could structure education systems to offer as much of this tutorship exposure as possible? We already know the lecture format and inactive learning is quite ineffective, so perhaps refocusing resources as much as possible on a more effective method, even with mediocre implementation, would produce better results, especially for those with aptitude.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#83I think this is more of a version of the "why have we stopped making good music/movies, almost everything today is garbage?" issue. With the benefit of hindsight, we only remember the greats (and the very worst villains) from past eras. While if we look around today, we see all the people who will never make it into the history books, just like we see all the songs and movies that will never become "classics." Edit:…
Tangentially, though, I think there's something to the complaints about music. Why does pop music have any noticeably autotuned singers at all, when anyone who regularly goes to karaoke bars knows that there are lots of good singers everywhere? In other words, why is being a good enough singer that one can record an impeccable vocal in one take apparently not a prerequisite for a recording contract?
Edit: To bring this back around to the topic of the article, I think the discussion of autotuned vocals might hint at an answer to the question about individual geniuses: it's not as important for individuals to have extraordinary abilities when technology can help us all do so much. I admit I was being a curmudgeon above; I know that autotune can be used to subtly improve mediocre vocals, in addition to enabling the obviously artificial sound that many of us consider crap.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#84I'd argue that the low-hanging fruit of science has been picked. That's why we're not seeing "Einsteins" everywhere. In fact, there's an Asimov short story (I can't recall the name) where certain members of society exist only to make connections between unrelated fields because the knowledge of humanity has become so vast. In fact, I'd say we're not far from that now, as there are more and more stories along the line…
The story is "Sucker Bait":
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#85Earlier 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…
> The last technological breakthrough was the smartphone. That's fairly recent, and pretty damned significant. How often are you expecting such society-changing innovations to occur? Your list of things we don't have that you want is kinda odd. Is there a need for cloned humans? What huge societal improvements do holograms permit? Why is a consumer product with graphene meaningful but the massive innovation in small,…
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#86Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#87Earlier 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 still don't have space stations that can accommodate more than a half dozen people. 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 drives. No anti-grav. No 200 year life expectancy. No human cloning. No $25 000 flying cars. No mass produced technology or consumer pro…
we do have physics of warp-drives somewhat figured out, but engineering remains a challenge. there are some warp fields experiments going on. if were to apply your metric, GPS was invented in 1915, by Einstein.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#88When Einstein proposed General Relativity it could be tested by nothing more complex than a camera. If anyone comes up with a theory of physics to explain further what we observe about the world the test usually entails a multi trillion dollar machine, a team of thousands of scientists and decades of engineering to bring about a test. Usually these things require novel engineering and for environments where we have n…
this is not what this all talk is about
Einstein is an (prime) example of conceptualist - man, who introduced revolutionary concept into our understanding of the world.
There are a lot of Nobel laureates who are (hard) problem solvers.
But in physics looks like we truly need a conceptualist, new Einstein so to speak
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
fwiw, that's a very time-local judgement of the progress we made. Objectively, as a species, we solved inter-connectivity, high quality media, etc. - the fact that we currently live in a culture where these means are distributed in the name of wealth will simply be meaningless a couple hundred years down the line.
why? status, hierarchy, etc, will be genetically edited out to turn our species into a faceless mass of obedient drones, ruled by the selected few? I see simply no other way out of very deeply the status/hierarchy thing that's so deeply ingrained into our species.
The system design of power/hierarchy makes sense in a partitioned world of limited resources. If we expect any continuous level of progress in our problem-domains (for example fresh water), its just a matter of time until culture eradicates certain inequalities. As of now, there is an active demand for inequality. People want to be wealthy, and as it is, that requires others to be poor and do the shit jobs. One part of this equation will continue to change in our favor - maybe forever.
I don't think this is "so deeply ingrained into our species", I think its nothing but culture, or maybe some middle ground, in which case culture will be the dominant factor over the long run.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, we could be doing so much better as a species, but our best minds are either selling ads or working in finance. Neither of which creates real progress for the masses. Not to mention that the government and the military have all but scrapped their research programs - a lot of the progress of the last decades has fundamental roots there (most notably the Internet). Instead, we let private companies like…
Let me offer a diverging perspective: >we could be doing so much better as a species ...relative to your expectations. If your model of the world (from which these expectations arise) was accurate, it would predict the world as it is, opposed to an ought. Things are not good or bad. They just are. And how we react to this status quo then can be evaluated as good or bad subjectively, and the closer you look at the met…