Are true geniuses extinct?

[Averagesupernova]

I do me and I let others do them.

I don't need motors to open up my curtains or car windows. Nor do I need to see with my own eyes how people live on the other side of the Earth just out of curiosity.

The worst example is using a car every time you want to go somewhere - to apparently save time - and then complaining about a lack of physical activities. So you take extra time to do pointless exercises, plus more time and resources to build a gym and machines to execute them ... for which you take a car to get there! I'm really not convinced about the efficiency of time and resources management in such a case.

And there is no way I'll contribute to other people's efforts, who think they need such things I wouldn't want for myself, while they complain about not having enough time and consumerism destroying our planet. They are obviously doing something wrong.

As a consequence, I do not, and barely did, participate in the working force - What is there to do anyway except waste excessively for pointless products or services? - which means I live on what others have already made because everybody wastes so much. I just do it because it makes sense, but you can call it my little contribution to the well-being of the planet if you want. Even with all of this "free" stuff and money I have, I can't find a way to use everything I have access to. I literally look for ways to spend money I never earned and I don't think I will live old enough to spend it all. How do people keep complaining about "not having enough" with an average salary when I live comfortably with half as much, if not less? It would even be easier if there were more people like me who I could share my lifestyle with.

Anyway, I let others worry about whatever problems they created and the absurd solutions they working on, and live my life as I see fit: i.e. with simplicity.

But the downside is that people think I'm weird and it gets lonely.

That's an interesting slant. The question is: Could you maintain your current lifestyle exactly the same if everyone else chose to live the exact same way you do?

 

[PeterDonis]

I do me and I let others do them.

But your "do me" obviously includes a lot more than basic food, clothing and shelter--for example, you're posting here, so you must have a computer and Internet access. Those things aren't basic food, clothing, and shelter, and they don't grow on trees. People have to produce them.

So I don't understand what your actual argument is. In fact I don't see any actual argument you are making; I just see you making a bare assertion that whatever works for you ought to work for anybody, so anything you personally don't do must be an unnecessary luxury and nobody else is justified in spending any resources on it.

For example:

I don't need motors to open up my curtains or car windows.

"Need" is a pretty subjective term. In principle I don't "need" them for my car windows either, but they're sure a lot easier to use than hand cranks. Not to mention that if I'm the only one in the car, I can control all of the windows from the driver's seat. That has plenty of valid use cases. Of course, if you haven't spent many years driving cars with automatic windows, you might not be aware of such use cases. But that doesn't mean they aren't there.

For curtains, I personally don't have motorized ones, but then again I'm fortunate enough to be easily mobile. What about people who aren't? Lots of people have disabilities that make having to get up to open or close a curtain a huge, huge chore instead of a simple innocuous task. Does that count as "need"? If so, what are you complaining about if they choose to use such devices? If that doesn't count as "need' to you, why not? What case would you make to those people to explain to them why you think they should give up these things?

Nor do I need to see with my own eyes how people live on the other side of the Earth just out of curiosity.

Sure, if you're just going to leave them alone. But if you're going to presume to dictate how you think they should live, then it sure doesn't seem like a very good idea to do so in complete ignorance.

The worst example is using a car every time you want to go somewhere - to apparently save time - and then complaining about a lack of physical activities. So you take extra time to do pointless exercises, plus more time and resources to build a gym and machines to execute them ... for which you take a car to get there! I'm really not convinced about the efficiency of time and resources management in such a case.

How common is such a case? For this kind of claim you need data, not anecdotal evidence.

And there is no way I'll contribute to other people's efforts, who think they need such things I wouldn't want for myself, while they complain about not having enough time and consumerism destroying our planet. They are obviously doing something wrong.

Again, how common is this? Data, please.

As a consequence, I do not, and barely did, participate in the working force - What is there to do anyway except waste excessively for pointless products or services? - which means I live on what others have already made because everybody wastes so much.

Um, what? You're somehow living on what others have produced, while just "barely" producing anything yourself--and yet somehow, what everyone else produces is "pointless products or services"? What about the people who produce the stuff you're living on? Are those things pointless?

"Waste" is another of those subjective terms that hinders discussion more than it helps. Sure, if you personally don't use it, it's "waste" to you--but what about all the people who do use it? Do they not count? What makes your opinion about what is "waste" and what isn't more valid than theirs?

I just do it because it makes sense, but you can call it my little contribution to the well-being of the planet if you want.

If you're not producing anything of value, you're not contributing anything to the well-being of the planet.

Even with all of this "free" stuff and money I have, I can't find a way to use everything I have access to. I literally look for ways to spend money I never earned and I don't think I will live old enough to spend it all.

That means you are extraordinarily fortunate. The vast majority of people on this planet are not as fortunate as you. Which means, IMO, that you are in no position to judge the choices they have to make.

How do people keep complaining about "not having enough" with an average salary when I live comfortably with half as much, if not less?

Perhaps they have "needs" that you do not.

It would even be easier if there were more people like me who I could share my lifestyle with.

This seems surprising to me. I thought the kind of austerity you appear to be describing had plenty of adherents.

Anyway, I let others worry about whatever problems they created and the absurd solutions they working on, and live my life as I see fit: i.e. with simplicity.

No problem at all with that. The problem is when you try to call out other people for making different choices from yours, when you have no basis that I can see for claiming that your choice of lifestyle is any more valid than anyone else's. It's just personal preference.

the downside is that people think I'm weird and it gets lonely.

Given what you have said here, I can understand that.

 

[pinball1970]

I wanted to post on bell curves regarding intelligence and "true" genius but the thread seems to have veered a little.

No matter...

Genius according to MENSA is 140 IQ, get 100 kids today and you will get a couple of big hitters. Perhaps a 140 or two

Get a million kids and you will get more and higher IQ.

That will continue and always has been, so there was no then and now.

Opportunities are more accessible now, humanity has moved on in this respect.

Hopefully as many of those kids as possible will get exposed to science/STEM literature and music.

An unapologetic optimistic view. I'm happy with that.

 

[pinball1970]

We don't need to travel across the world, live in mansions, or have machines to do every simple task for us

A realistic sustainable future for all humanity is something to aspire to.

 

[pines-demon]

I wanted to post on bell curves regarding intelligence and "true" genius but the thread seems to have veered a little.

No matter...

Genius according to MENSA is 140 IQ, get 100 kids today and you will get a couple of big hitters. Perhaps a 140 or two

Get a million kids and you will get more and higher IQ.

That will continue and always has been, so there was no then and now.

Opportunities are more accessible now, humanity has moved on in this respect.

Hopefully as many of those kids as possible will get exposed to science/STEM literature and music.

An unapologetic optimistic view. I'm happy with that.

Most scientific discoveries, even the fundamental ones, are not necessarily made by the highest IQ, and highest IQ does not always translate into scientific breakthroughs.

 

[jack action]

But your "do me" obviously includes a lot more than basic food, clothing and shelter

The fact that I can make the difference between "need" and "want" doesn't mean I don't have "wants". It means I don't complain because I don't have my "wants".

I just see you making a bare assertion that whatever works for you ought to work for anybody, so anything you personally don't do must be an unnecessary luxury and nobody else is justified in spending any resources on it.

I never claimed that.

I can restrain, or even cut off, my computer time for a higher purpose. I would certainly do if I needed to trade it for food or shelter. Why? Because I don't "need" it, I just "want" it (and can afford it too). If someone else thinks it is a "need" for them, fine by me. But no one will make me believe that it is the case for the average person.

"Need" is a pretty subjective term.

Agreed. That is why I'm all for the freedom of choice for anyone.

But if you're going to presume to dictate how you think they should live,

Again, I never claim that. But the fact that I agree that anyone can live as they see fit doesn't mean I cannot judge their choices.

How common is such a case? For this kind of claim you need data, not anecdotal evidence.

Again, how common is this? Data, please.

I could say the same for your previous statements:

I can control all of the windows from the driver's seat. That has plenty of valid use cases.

Lots of people have disabilities that make having to get up to open or close a curtain a huge, huge chore instead of a simple innocuous task.

As for the data I would like to refer to, to show my point:

Since the 1960s, the consensus among anthropologists, historians, and sociologists has been that early hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed more leisure time than is permitted by capitalist and agrarian societies; for instance, one camp of !Kung Bushmen was estimated to work two-and-a-half days per week, at around 6 hours a day. Aggregated comparisons show that on average the working day was less than five hours.

Subsequent studies in the 1970s examined the Machiguenga of the Upper Amazon and the Kayapo of northern Brazil. These studies expanded the definition of work beyond purely hunting-gathering activities, but the overall average across the hunter-gatherer societies he studied was still below 4.86 hours, while the maximum was below 8 hours. Popular perception is still aligned with the old academic consensus that hunter-gatherers worked far in excess of modern humans' forty-hour week.

According to several quantitative studies, hunter-gatherers typically devoted about 20 hours per week to hunting or gathering and another 10 to 20 hours to chores at the campsite, such as food processing and making or mending tools (e.g. Lee, 1972; Sahlins, 1972 ). All in all, the research suggests, hunter-gatherer adults spent an average of 30 to 40 hours per week on all subsistence-related activities combined, which is considerably less than the workweek of the typical modern American, if the American’s 40 or more hours of paid employment is added to the hours spent on domestic chores.

There you go, on average, people used to live while working a good 20 hours per week less than in today's modern society. (While noting that the !Kung Bushmen, Machiguenga and Kayapo are our contemporary.)

Even in today's modern society, the average person can live while working 1000 hours/year at minimum wage or the equivalent. You probably cannot live alone in your 2-bedroom appartment, don't have a car and spend your leisure time by going to the park or playing cards, but you still have your basic "needs" fulfilled even though all of your "wants" are just dreams.

For sure, it makes no sense that an average person works 2000+ h/year and cannot take care of their basic "needs" - however you define them - especially something as basic as eating. (18% percent of food bank visitors has employment as primary income.) You are either extremely unlucky, totally inefficient, you're getting rob or ... you spend too much on your "wants". If you are inefficient or get rob constantly, you better off not working. In any case other than bad luck, start doing things differently.

and yet somehow, what everyone else produces is "pointless products or services"? What about the people who produce the stuff you're living on? Are those things pointless?

Sometimes, it is not the usefulness that is the problem but the design itself, like unnecessary single-use items or unrepairable products. It is rather rare to not find overproduction in our culture:

5. Consumer Culture and Planned Obsolescence

Our consumer-driven society and the concept of planned obsolescence contribute significantly to overproduction. Tech giants like Apple release new models annually, encouraging frequent upgrades and resulting in older models turning into excess production. This relentless cycle feeds the overproduction beast.

but what about all the people who do use it? Do they not count? What makes your opinion about what is "waste" and what isn't more valid than theirs?

Again, to each their own. But I still reserve the right to judge the action of others for my personal benefit.

If you're not producing anything of value, you're not contributing anything to the well-being of the planet.

You are if you live in a context of overproduction (see reference above). The first step of waste hierachy is prevention, used here is the sense of "not producing something".

(source)​

Do you see the word "need/s?" next to prevention in the 2nd diagram? Interesting, isn't it?

That means you are extraordinarily fortunate.

I am.

The vast majority of people on this planet are not as fortunate as you.

But the vast majority of people in the Western World are just as fortunate as I am and ...

IMO, that you are in no position to judge the choices they have to make.

... I still reserve the right to judge their actions for my personal benefit.

And just to make it really clear: I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I just do my own thing and share my experience.

Could you maintain your current lifestyle exactly the same if everyone else chose to live the exact same way you do?

Absolutely not and that would be a good thing. I would rather work with others. I'm just not interested in what they do and/or how they do it. And when I speak up, I get responses like the one from @PeterDonis above that essentially tell me they are not interested in my ways either. The more it is done in a condescending manner, the worst is the communication breakdown.

How else can one react when people prefer to work by themselves and leave them in a corner with all their needs fufilled rather than to discuss and work with them to a common goal? Fight? Millions of people?

And then, maybe I'm wrong and they are right. In any case, I've made the best out of what I was given: Either I was right, the world is headed for trouble and I have not contribute to it, or I lived an easy life in a world that was meant to support me like if I was a pet or something. I don't want a world in trouble, I don't want to spent my life in a golden cage but, again, what else can I do?

A realistic sustainable future for all humanity is something to aspire to.

Agreed. I just don't think we are even close to heading that way. All I see are people who don't want to lose their "wants" at any cost. And they are willing to sacrifice their "needs" to do so.

And to bring it back to the thread's topic, I highly doubt that all that is missing is a "genius" that will find a way to do so. It is just wishful thinking.

 

[pinball1970]

Most scientific discoveries, even the fundamental ones, are not necessarily made by the highest IQ,

That's another discussion I think.

What is intelligence?
How is it measured?
Can we measure it?
Are scientists "intelligent?"
Were they as kids?
Einstein and the ones we consider genius?

Feynman? Average?? 125, how was that measured? He completed the maths entry exam for Caltech (I think) with a 100% score.

 

[pines-demon]

Einstein and the ones we consider genius?

I would not doubt Einstein being a genius.

 

[pinball1970]

I would not doubt Einstein being a genius.

Im not in a position to judge, by all accounts he was. Any different to today though?
To Ed Witten, Terrence Tao or Ruth Lawrence?

My claim, based on history and biology is no. Statistically we will get very smart kids and once in a generation we will get a Pele or McCartney.

 

[PeterDonis]

The fact that I can make the difference between "need" and "want" doesn't mean I don't have "wants". It means I don't complain because I don't have my "wants".

That may be true, but it's irrelevant to my point. What is just a "want" to you might be a "need" to someone else, and they might complain about the lack of it where you would not. You have given no basis to say that your definition of when it's justified to complain has any special status.

no one will make me believe that it is the case for the average person.

Really? You think nobody does any essential business with computers or over the Internet? Are we living on the same planet?

That is why I'm all for the freedom of choice for anyone.

Then why are you complaining when other people make different choices from you? What's your point?

I still reserve the right to judge the action of others for my personal benefit.

On what basis? Freedom of choice means what it says. If other people are free to choose, what's there for you to judge?

You are if you live in a context of overproduction

As far as I can tell, by "overproduction" you mean "making things I don't personally use." Which just underscores my point.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I just do my own thing and share my experience.

Evidently our experiences are very different.

 

[PeterDonis]

on average, people used to live while working a good 20 hours per week less than in today's modern society.

Sure, if you don't need any modern conveniences. Are you planning to go live with the Bushmen? If not, why not? I'm guessing it's because you don't want to live at that standard of living. Neither do I. But then looking at how much work it takes to support that standard of living that we don't want to live at is pointless.

it makes no sense that an average person works 2000+ h/year and cannot take care of their basic "needs" - however you define them - especially something as basic as eating. (18% percent of food bank visitors has employment as primary income.) You are either extremely unlucky, totally inefficient, you're getting rob or ... you spend too much on your "wants".

The source you cite does not give any way of telling which, if any, of your four claims (unlucky, inefficient, robbed, poor choices of what to spend on) are applicable to the people described. First, "employment" is not at all the same as "working 2000+ h/year". Second, the article gives no information about what income those people are able to get from their "employment". Third, the article gives no information about where there income is going other than food.

And unless you're including "lives in a society which, because of way too much micromanagement from the top down by government, has a horrendously inefficient market for matching up workers with jobs that productively utilize their skills and pay them accordingly" in "extremely unlucky", you're not taking into account an obvious fifth cause of the predicament described in the article. Which is surprising to me since a number of your other comments seem to point in that obvious direction. But of course that is not the fault of the individuals involved, it's the fault of society, and you appear to want to blame the individuals.

 

[Agent Smith]

However, like all of us, she can be stupid. Her critique of Wile's proof of Fermat's last theorem demonstrated serious mathematical ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Fermat's_Last_Theorem

Not everyday is Sunday I suppose.

It's said that in today's world there can be no polymaths.

 

[Agent Smith]

This problem is straightforward to solve: Work only for what you need, not what you want. We need [basic] food, shelter, and clothing.

We don't need to travel across the world, live in mansions, or have machines to do every simple task for us, which forces us to have more machines to help us maintain our physical health.

 

[javisot20]

To be a genius you have to prove it, it is not enough to have a great ability to solve intelligence tests. Not all people with great ability to solve intelligence tests prove to be geniuses. It seems that it is increasingly difficult to prove to be a genius in today's society. In the same way, in scientific bibliometrics the volume of disruptive science falls and the volume of continuous science increases.

https://francis.naukas.com/2023/01/08/atencion-pregunta-esta-disminuyendo-la-ciencia-disruptiva/in Spanish, but it can be translated.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

- the book on fundamental physical laws of nature is largely closed

I remember this being said not long before we discovered we had missed 95% of the universe - dark energy and dark matter.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am still waiting to see the fundamental physical constants either derived, or proven to be statistical in an infinity of universes.

 

[Pythagorean]

the book on fundamental physical laws of nature is largely closed

I'd definitely challenge this as a variant of human hubris. We've uncovered about 100 questions for every question we've answered - we've opened a pandora's box in the last century. The modern physics revolution may lure us into a false sense of completion, but there's still lots of interesting things happening to understand the nature of space and time and gravity and relativity and the standard model. All we've really reached is a value ceiling - all the low hanging fruit that has low resource cost or an obvious economic benefit has been plucked, all the higher hanging fruit is still largely untouched. It requires either lots of resources (while providing little known economic value back)... or some combination of luck and genius to make a discovery.

The problem - from the perspective of public perception, is that it's all dispersed (across fields and experts) and highly abstracted now. It's hard to even understand what the fundamental problems are now without having spent a decade understanding the state of what we know in your particular field alone.

Many people are actively working on different parts of modern questions about so-called "fundamental" laws (for example topological approaches to understanding spacetime could be inspired and facilitated by Perelman's recent contributions to Ricci flow analysis that he used to solve the Poincare conjecture just 20 years ago - this was actually quite a huge step but it could take another century to make use of the tool and understand the implications).

 

[BWV]

I remember this being said not long before we discovered we had missed 95% of the universe - dark energy and dark matter.

Right, reinforcing the point that our models can explain most everything except at far extremes of scale and/or energy- which we may never have the tools to fully understand. Furthermore, back to the OP, new insights in these areas are unlikely to come from a lone genius, a ‘next Newton’ or ‘next Einstein’ - physics is way past line individuals being able to make contributions of that level

 

[BWV]

I'd definitely challenge this as a variant of human hubris. We've uncovered about 100 questions for every question we've answered - we've opened a pandora's box in the last century. The modern physics revolution may lure us into a false sense of completion, but there's still lots of interesting things happening to understand the nature of space and time and gravity and relativity and the standard model. All we've really reached is a value ceiling - all the low hanging fruit that has low resource cost or an obvious economic benefit has been plucked, all the higher hanging fruit is still largely untouched. It requires either lots of resources (while providing little known economic value back)... or some combination of luck and genius to make a discovery.

The problem - from the perspective of public perception, is that it's all dispersed (across fields and experts) and highly abstracted now. It's hard to even understand what the fundamental problems are now without having spent a decade understanding the state of what we know in your particular field alone.

Many people are actively working on different parts of modern questions about so-called "fundamental" laws (for example topological approaches to understanding spacetime could be inspired and facilitated by Perelman's recent contributions to Ricci flow analysis that he used to solve the Poincare conjecture just 20 years ago - this was actually quite a huge step but it could take another century to make use of the tool and understand the implications).

Interesting that you quote my post as hubris then list all thr reason why I am likely correct

 

[Pythagorean]

Interesting that you quote my post as hubris then list all thr reason why I am likely correct

I think we are interpreting things differently. To be clear, I'm only demonstrating why the book on the fundamental laws of physics is not largely closed. The game is changing, but it's more like a new chapter than a conclusion.