Do You Ever Feel Intimidated by Historical Geniuses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Remon
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around feelings of inadequacy when comparing oneself to historical intellectual giants like Einstein and Newton. The original poster expresses a sense of depression over not reaching such levels of genius, dismissing the notion that everyone is special. Responses emphasize that greatness is often innate and that individuals should not compare themselves to these figures. Instead, they should focus on personal growth and contributions, regardless of their field. Many participants argue that all professions, including the arts and humanities, hold value and that societal contributions come in various forms. The conversation highlights the importance of recognizing one's own worth and the diverse ways people can impact the world, rather than fixating on a narrow definition of success tied to scientific achievement. The dialogue also touches on the idea that the pursuit of knowledge and personal fulfillment can be rewarding in itself, regardless of one's standing in comparison to historical figures.
  • #31
FreeMitya said:
If a snide remark is all that you can come up with ...

Just as a heads up, being that thin-skinned is not going to serve you well on this forum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Remon said:
I didn't really take the 200 Kg into account... but is this really what we're arguing about? lol

You don't strike me as obese, so I thought I mentioned a bigger object than you?? :confused:
 
  • #33
arildno said:
You don't strike me as obese, so I thought I mentioned a bigger object than you?? :confused:

What? I'm actually kind of skinny but I don't see how the subject of weight would confuse you lol
When you mentioned "rocks", I automatically assumed that you're talking about planets because that's partially what I meant when I said "universe".
Anyways, we did a pretty good job of staying on topic, didn't we? lol
 
  • #34
Remon said:
"A society focused on science", sure it sounds too good to be true, but like the others mentioned, it is almost equally important to have other branches as well (such as arts, strong economy, philosophy, music, etc... except for religion) or else we will never remember such as society centuries from now... although, it seems like I'm contradicting myself but I have no shame to admit it :)

Sorry to be such an uber-nerd, seriously. But I'll never forget Captain Picard, to Wesley, in a shuttlecraft looking at the stars going by - "Open your mind to the past - art, history, philosophy. And all this may mean something."

-Dave K
 
  • #35
phinds said:
Just as a heads up, being that thin-skinned is not going to serve you well on this forum.

I didn't say I was hurt by it, but it was snide. It's the same as not feeling insulted by being called an idiot, but recognizing that it was an insult, or it was meant to be one. I was actually happy it was said, because it's much better to be acknowledged (in whatever way) than to be ignored. (We're all entitled to employ cliches every now and then.)

EDIT: I apologize in advance if I misinterpreted the post or overreacted. I have a long history of encounters with people who are unbearably arrogant about their fields, but I'm sorry if there's been a misunderstanding. Maybe I'm too insecure.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
I agree that the OP's remark about being essentially worthless for not being a revolutionary physicist, and nothing else, is pretty weird to me. I majored in math, and while I never got a PhD or became a professional mathematician, I completely appreciate the value of math and science to the world. I also think that history is at least as important to know as math, and probably even more so.

Since there have been some (I'm assuming pretty good-natured) jabs at the "soft sciences", I also think that, contrary to what most scientists and mathematicians will tell you, history and a lot of the humanities are actually harder than the "hard sciences." There are no axioms to fall back on and no near-universal agreement on what's true and what isn't. You're much more on your own in something like history, although it helps to have some experience with making models and testing hypotheses to see which version of history makes the most sense. There's of course a higher BS:truth ratio in something like history, but that's to be expected; there's not much reason to lie about mathematical results, but there are certainly reasons to lie about history.

Even leaving behind academic matters, firefighters, EMTs, some random person handing out gloves and socks to the homeless, Big Brothers/Sisters (which may not be universal, but it's a mentoring organization), the people behind "It Gets Better", etc., are all serving a pretty high purpose if you ask me.
 
  • #37
FreeMitya said:
EDIT: I apologize in advance if I misinterpreted the post or overreacted. I have a long history of encounters with people who are unbearably arrogant about their fields, but I'm sorry if there's been a misunderstanding. Maybe I'm too insecure.

There was no misunderstanding. I was pointing out how you made liberal arts seem infinitely more important than it actually is. But don't get me wrong as I'm not saying that e.g. pure math is more important than the liberal arts. If anything, a lot of contemporary pure math is laughably useless in comparison.
 
  • #38
WannabeNewton said:
There was no misunderstanding. I was pointing out how you made liberal arts seem infinitely more important than it actually is. But don't get me wrong as I'm not saying that e.g. pure math is more important than the liberal arts. If anything, a lot of contemporary pure math is laughably useless in comparison.

Define "liberal arts." I've always found the way people use this term to be vague, so I searched it on Encyclopaedia Britannica, and according to it the liberal arts include the humanities, mathematics, science, etc. But maybe we all make everything seem more important than it actually is. We're a passionate species.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339020/liberal-arts

Most of the article is provided for free. It gets the job done, at any rate.

Enough pedantry!

I don't see how I made the humanities seem more important than they actually are, but we've been down this road before, and we seemed to reach an understanding. There is little point in starting this again.
 
  • #39
Tobias Funke said:
Since there have been some (I'm assuming pretty good-natured) jabs at the "soft sciences", I also think that, contrary to what most scientists and mathematicians will tell you, history and a lot of the humanities are actually harder than the "hard sciences." There are no axioms to fall back on and no near-universal agreement on what's true and what isn't. You're much more on your own in something like history, although it helps to have some experience with making models and testing hypotheses to see which version of history makes the most sense. There's of course a higher BS:truth ratio in something like history, but that's to be expected; there's not much reason to lie about mathematical results, but there are certainly reasons to lie about history.

I think it comes down to what type of thinking one is most comfortable with. There are definitely many individuals who are more intellectually inclined to certain fields than others. I always liked this scene from Good Will Hunting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKu_QQVHJLA

It would be bold for a science superstar to say that, just because he is a science superstar, he can write a good piece of music or a beautiful poem, and the same goes for great artists regarding high quality scientific research. It's an easy and often-used idea, but that doesn't make it incorrect.
 
  • #40
Remon said:
Recently, I've started to research and look up some of history's intellectual geniuses and watching documentaries about them (such as Einstein, Newton, Michio Kaku, etc. and all of their different theories and ideas) and after a few weeks, I started to find it depressing that I'm never going to reach that level of "genius" (and don't tell me that we're all "special" in some way because, excuse my language, we all know that that is BS). I realize that these are just very few people selected for a higher purpose out of the billions of people who ever lived since 10,000 B.C.E, but I still find it rather depressing, did anyone else ever feel something similar at some point of their life? Or am I just "too knowledgeable/self aware" for my own good (even though I'm not smart at all, I just didn't how to word it properly)?
p.s Sorry if I put this in the wrong section but 'general discussion' was the closest thing I could find

Well for one thing, I wouldn't compare Kaku with Einstein and Newton.

And secondly, you must remember that geniuses as you put it sacrificed other stuff. Look on Newton and Tesla's marital status.
 
  • #41
FreeMitya said:
I personally think that the defeat of the Nazis was more important than that. ;)

In all seriousness, I know what you mean, and I agree.
And I agree with you in that it is rather meaningless, as OP seems to do, to set up a SINGLE standard of "what is important".
I certainly find both much pleasure and insight in truly great art, but see no need to compare that importance with, say, the importance I find in sitting by the riverside a beautiful evening, or in sharing an evening with good friends.
 
  • #42
Remon said:
If you're talking about Michio Kaku, then you're wrong. The man is a genius and I watched many videos of him on youtube and read a bit about him, I also have much respect for Theoretical physicists (Kaku being one) and Astrophysicists because they don't just focus on the small things here on earth, they go beyond that.

Most people would know Newton and Einstein. Not many would know Kaku. What has he done?
 
  • #43
BMW said:
Most people would know Newton and Einstein. Not many would know Kaku. What has he done?
As with Newton and Einstein, he has a really bad haircut.
 
  • #44
MathematicalPhysicist said:
Well for one thing, I wouldn't compare Kaku with Einstein and Newton.

And secondly, you must remember that geniuses as you put it sacrificed other stuff. Look on Newton and Tesla's marital status.

I was already aware that Newton was not a "social butterfly", and how he was a "hermit", which makes sense because the man is obviously much smarter than anyone else therefore he may have considered other people to be somewhat "inferior" or maybe because he was just different.
What I don't get is how Einstein not only married twice (second time being married to his cousin which is a little strange), but also got a family together lol
Also, it seems that a lot of people are saying that I shouldn't compare Kaku to the other geniuses, that main reason why I put his name on the list too was because he tries to relate to the average man (like me) by posting these videos on youtube and tries to explain many complicated theories/predictions very simply for us stupid people to understand lol
I also watched his 42 min. lecture on youtube (as well as a lot of other people by looking at the view count) which I found somewhat fascinating and that's the main reason why I really started to watch him more; I guess what I'm saying is that he's more relatable to us than say Einstein or Tesla (as well as other people too like Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye who was a small part of my childhood)
 
Last edited:
  • #45
arildno said:
As with Newton and Einstein, he has a really bad haircut.

Newton didn't even bother with his hair... he just wore a wig like everyone else during that time, which makes him somewhat of a badass to me :)
 
  • #48
Remon said:
I was already aware that Newton was not a "social butterfly", and how he was a "hermit", which makes sense because the man is obviously much smarter than anyone else therefore he may have considered other people to be somewhat "inferior" or maybe because he was just different.
What I don't get is how Einstein not only married twice (second time being married to his cousin which is a little strange), but also got a family together lol
Also, it seems that a lot of people are saying that I shouldn't compare Kaku to the other geniuses, that main reason why I put his name on the list too was because he tries to relate to the average man (like me) by posting these videos on youtube and tries to explain many complicated theories/predictions very simply for us stupid people to understand lol
I also watched his 42 min. lecture on youtube (as well as a lot of other people by looking at the view count) which I found somewhat fascinating and that's the main reason why I really started to watch him more; I guess what I'm saying is that he's more relatable to us than say Einstein or Tesla (as well as other people too like Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye who was a small part of my childhood)

Well you must remember that back then, for men like Einstein the wife was sort of a maid.

It's not like nowadays that the wife can have her own career.

Even Dirac had a wife...
 
  • #49
Remon said:
Also, it seems that a lot of people are saying that I shouldn't compare Kaku to the other geniuses, that main reason why I put his name on the list too was because he tries to relate to the average man (like me) by posting these videos on youtube and tries to explain many complicated theories/predictions very simply for us stupid people to understand lol

Yes, but many of the things he "explains" are just plain WRONG. The man is a joke these days. Check out the links in my previous post.
 
  • #51
MathematicalPhysicist said:
Even Dirac had a wife...
And Newton had lots of young male assistants he enthused about, until he scared them off by either his Aspergian or closethomosexual behaviour towards them (I don't know which).
On the emotional side, Newton was a complete wacko.
 
  • #53
arildno said:
On the emotional side, Newton was a complete wacko.

More on the topic...
http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/62/3/289.full
Abstract

Newton grew up with a vulnerable and eccentric character besides having a low self-esteem, and he was someone who only uncommonly developed any close relationships. On review it is argued that his distrust and suspicions of others, and the fear that he might be harmed by criticism and his discoveries stolen, followed from his mother's separation from him in childhood and not, as has been claimed, from the developmental disorder of Asperger's syndrome. It is further firmly argued that his ‘madness’ of 1692 and 1693 was due to mercury poisoning from his alchemical experiments and not to clinical depression.
 
  • #54
phinds said:
Yes, but many of the things he "explains" are just plain WRONG. The man is a joke these days. Check out the links in my previous post.

I did actually look at all of them but one of them wasn't even fair because, for some reason, the reporter was interviewing him about a volcano (I think it was), which is the job of a geologist not a theoretical physicist. Even if he was wrong about many of his ideas or "explanations", he still managed to open many people's minds (such as me, where I was completely ignorant about most of this stuff before watching his videos and searching them myself) and most likely motivated some of them to pursue a career in science which greatly benefits society, I'm still thinking of majoring or minoring in physics in university simply because I started to get interested in this matter from watching people like him, which is also why I kind of look up to him in a way (even though he might be wrong). I mean before watching him on youtube, I had no idea what the theory of relativity was or what string theory was, I had no idea that Newton pretty much invented calculus (only when he was 20something too), I had no idea what the large Hadron Collider was for or what the Higgs boson was (I still don't know lol), etc. Also, some of the points he made (such as evolution constantly taking place because we pick the "prettiest" mate which is a sign of them being healthy or the different types of civilization) actually make sense even though they might be wrong, its still a different and new perspective to look at things (although I don't really see how one can prove them wrong since most of them are just theories = non proven). I guess what I'm saying is that even though he might have been wrong, he did manage to spark my curiosity about theoretical physics and science overall as well as many others. It is the same effect that popular channels such as Vsauce and Minutephysics have made, which is actually something I really like because they are the ones who make a real difference in society by influencing more people to think reasonably, scientifically, etc.
p.s sorry for the book I just wrote lol
 
Last edited:
  • #55
arildno said:
And Newton had lots of young male assistants he enthused about, until he scared them off by either his Aspergian or closethomosexual behaviour towards them (I don't know which).
On the emotional side, Newton was a complete wacko.

The reason why many people think he was a complete "wacko" or developed a level of autism is because most of "normal" people have "normal" IQ and the "normal" brainpower as everyone else, but Newton was not like this. He was different, therefore it only makes sense why he interacted differently with others, you can't blame him as a person. The same goes with most of the other "great minds". If someone is born different (whether for the good or for the bad), you can't expect them to interact with everyone else normally, since they are different.
 
  • #56
Remon said:
The reason why many people think he was a complete "wacko" or developed a level of autism is because most of "normal" people have "normal" IQ and the "normal" brainpower as everyone else, but Newton was not like this. He was different, therefore it only makes sense why he interacted differently with others, you can't blame him as a person. The same goes with most of the other "great minds". If someone is born different (whether for the good or for the bad), you can't expect them to interact with everyone else normally, since they are different.
This is just your personal opinion.

This thread has turned into a rant, so is closed.
 

Similar threads

Is having a genius IQ a prerequisite to be the next Einstein
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
Stupidity is written on the face but genius is not
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Do you get frustrated when you don't understand something?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K
Do you ever feel insecure about your intelligence?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
I've been feeling lost as of late.
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
What defines a truly smart person?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Where to Pick Up Women In the Sciences?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
How do you cope with not knowing?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
Do you find that you intimidate others because you study physics?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Do You Ever Have That Feeling That Someone Is Watching You
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K