Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
theintrinsicperspective.com
Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#2Odd choice for the article to focus on Einstein when this is definitely the case in physics. The lowest hanging fruit has been picked, and reaching the higher branches requires facilities with large collaborations to support them. There are still important ideas coming from individuals, but for comparison the discovery of the photoelectric effect or Rutherford scattering or electromagnetic induction are all things that can be worked out by a single person with a tabletop setup.
It used to be possible for a single person to have all of Physics in their head. Now the amount of information is so large that it's just physically impossible. Physics isn't being created, but uncovered.
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#3If you were born in Oppenheimer's era you gained a huge advantage of parents wealthy enough to pay for undergrad school (perhaps a paltry 5%) AND graduate school (perhaps 0.01%) so the gulf in education and knowledge between these wealthy educrats and the average man on the street was far more enormous, and these educrats had a much bigger inside track to discovery ...
So to summarize, a genius is measured by their intellectual height above the AVERAGE person and the average has increased a lot. At the same time, standardized education is killing diversity and creativity...
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#4I dont really believe this crazy tutoring theory AT ALL. What has changed is that education has become widespread. It is well known that standardized education destroys creativity. Ramanujen was largely self-taught! The stuff you learn on your own or unconventionally makes you capable of solving problems that the cookie cutter intellectuals cannot! If you were born in Oppenheimer's era you gained a huge advantage of…
https://sabr.org/journal/article/can-stephen-jay-goulds-theo...
>Gould then supposes that the decline in batting average peak (the .400 hitter, the outlier) is due to decreased variation in the population of hitters. In other words, as the skills of both hitters and pitchers improved, and as the pool of talented players to choose from increased, the variation in talent (the difference between the best to the worst batting averages) should decrease. Therefore, players in Major League Baseball in more recent period are arguably reaching the “wall” of human performance. Gould’s analysis of the data supports this idea, as the standard deviation of league-wide batting averages has decreased steadily since the early 20th century.
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#5> entirety of knowledge and that didn’t trigger a golden age
Assumes facts not in evidence!
I think that we are so inundated in amazing things and have so much access to amazing things that instead we're just forgetting how to be amazed!
The metrics given in the article aren't convincing. So the number of "geniuses" per capata is down. So? The absolute numbers of people are way up! And what it takes to be "accomplished" has accordingly increased.
I'm just a random guy and tooting around with recreational mathematics I've from time to time made a discovery I found that I thought was really interesting only to find on further research it WAS an interesting discovery ... in the 1940s by some big name (or in the 1800s by Gauss). This is only possible-- for me-- because I'm standing on the shoulders of many greats and I have tremendous tools available to me that didn't exist even decades ago.
To me that sounds like the renaissance the that the author presumes doesn't exist!
Now this stuff isn't usually resulting in published work-- but that's because it's already published (and well enough available that I know it's published). The bar is higher now.
So it's a darn good thing that we have all these advances because they're whats needed to continue making progress and accelerating, even if it doesn't look that impressive when divided by our exponential population growth. With so much amazing happening people are off doing stuff that isn't captured by the metrics. Some of that stuff could be amazing in it's own light too, but in ways our historical perspective doesn't capture and appreciate.
As far as singular genius goes: As we all become better, due to better tools and better access to knowledge, it makes sense that our accomplishments will become more compressed against the ceiling of what's possible given our current technology. Moreover, we work on more things today that are of a scope greater than any single human-- and this work depends on the collective effort of large teams.
These change likely decrease the importance and visibility of singular genius.
Even if we accept that it's less common now, due to rarity singular genius is difficult to rigorously study and probably impossible study so ethically: Maybe it's down because incest is less common or because child abuse is less common! There are a lot of things which have changed in recent errors which we would not reverse for the sake of more outstanding geniuses.
Instead of looking back and lamenting the that the concentration of singular genius seems to have decreased there is probably so much more to gain from growing into all the new possibilities that have opened to us recently, many of which we've only barely begun to comprehend.
(and, if it isn't clear-- I didn't actually stop reading at the beginning ;) )
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#6On other hand this likely leads to lot less waste and as society we are already tight on money as things get more expensive. So we cannot just waste it to any random idea or apparent crank... Or pseudoscience...
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#7I dont really believe this crazy tutoring theory AT ALL. What has changed is that education has become widespread. It is well known that standardized education destroys creativity. Ramanujen was largely self-taught! The stuff you learn on your own or unconventionally makes you capable of solving problems that the cookie cutter intellectuals cannot! If you were born in Oppenheimer's era you gained a huge advantage of…
Stephen Jay Gould made a very similar argument about the disappeared .400 baseball hitter: https://sabr.org/journal/article/can-stephen-jay-goulds-theo... >Gould then supposes that the decline in batting average peak (the .400 hitter, the outlier) is due to decreased variation in the population of hitters. In other words, as the skills of both hitters and pitchers improved, and as the pool of talented players to choo…
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#8Maybe the next Einstein is currently being asked to at least wiggle their mouse every 30 seconds to pretend they are busy on corporate spreadsheets, spend at least four hours in meetings each day, and aren't even allowed pencils and papers to sketch on at their desk because it is a PII or other corporate secrets exfiltration risk. Good luck to them stringing together a coherent thought, much less a working theory to revolutionize physics.
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#9One very different answer to this: we've lost a lot of "boring but living wage" jobs with little to no supervision. Einstein had a lot of time to think and sketch and write formulas at jobs like the Swiss Patent Office. How many jobs do you see around you that you can do that and survive? We've seen an incredible rise in "bullshit jobs" but we've also elevated corporate surveillance to incredible heights and much of…
Every computer worker have internet and probably phone. With all of the social media, and endless ways to waste time. So even if Einstein would have time, they would be occupied on wasting their time on HN or something else. You might have been able to bring a book or day's newspaper to office, but after you are done with that?
Re: Why We Stopped Making Einsteins
#10I know it's really bad form to quote the first sentence of an article and say you stopped reading there but... > entirety of knowledge and that didn’t trigger a golden age Assumes facts not in evidence! I think that we are so inundated in amazing things and have so much access to amazing things that instead we're just forgetting how to be amazed! The metrics given in the article aren't convincing. So the number of "g…
Other assumed facts:
1) we ever started "making Einsteins" in the first place
2) Assuming (1), we actually stopped
Lots of other things are possible:
- there are people of incredible genius out there making profound discoveries the author is unaware of
- there are people of incredible genius out there making profound discoveries the impact of which has yet to be generally felt or appreciated
- So much is being published now and some fields are so niche and complex that it takes time for the community to process and undestand work that is done
- People are empowered by better tools etc to tackle bigger things which take longer and require more collaboration (eg the langlands project)
- geniuses aren't made at all, but instead just come along every now and again at random. You can't extrapolate from a stochastic process involving very rare events and make any kind of determination whatsoever about trends without having that determination basically just reflect your assumptions.