Do You Ever Feel Intimidated by Historical Geniuses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Remon
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
Remon
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think eventually you'll be too busy to feel that way, or you'll just get over it. There's no point trying to compare yourself to the greats, because they were great from a young age - with the except of perhaps a very few, they were all gifted in physics and mathematics at a very early age, and the level of skill they possessed isn't something you can gradually work towards as an adult IMO.

Just do your best and try to enjoy yourself. There's lots of things you'll never be great at - it's too late for you to become an Olympic gymnast, or a profession football player, or a grandmaster of chess, or a million other things, it doesn't mean you can't enjoy life.
 
Learn classical mechanics and you'll know more than all the ancient scientists who worked on mechanics.
Learn chemistry and you'll know more than all the ancient alchemists.
Learn contemporary astronomy and cosmology and you'll know more than Galileo et al.
Learn relativity and you'll know more than Newton et al.
Learn quantum mechanics and you'll know more than John Dalton et al.
etc.

What I am trying to say is that I think it's good to remember that we all stand on the shoulders of giants.
 
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
Obtain an education and knowledge, and do what one can do.

It's not really a race, but if everyone who fell behind the front runner gave up, then it would become a 1 person event.

Everyone can contribute something to the world, so think of something positive to contribute.

I find that there is more than enough for one to do for several lifetimes.

Robert Curl didn't give up - http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1996/curl-bio.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
You would feel a lot less depressed if you get rid of the following contempt expressed for ordinary people:
"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"
---
What makes a scientist into such a superhuman, the only one who fulfills "a higher purpose"?
That is just denigrating all other life projects around which peoples' lives revolve.

Perhaps you should start looking for OTHER fields, IN ADDITION TO, science, in which you also find meaning, rather than dismissing those fields as being of "low purpose"?
 
You are not special and you can't do everything you want. But I don't see how that obvious reality should cause depression unless our society has driven into you for decades the lie that you are special.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
You are not special and you can't do everything you want. But I don't see how that obvious reality should cause depression unless our society has driven into you fort decades the lie that you are special.
Agreed!
But, isn't this really the downside of the universal slogan: "You can become anything you want to be!" ?
Personally, I think a better slogan would be: "You can always do better!"

Even better would be to do away slogans altogether.
 
I used to feel that way, then I got high. joking but I did feel like you but you should not compare yourselves to others but rather take example of them. Don't get upset because you won't discover neo-relativity (perhaps you will).
 
Superposed_Cat said:
but I did feel like you but you should not compare yourselves to others but rather take example of them.

To feel pride and gratefulness that you can follow the works of the truly great minds is in itself a source of joy and self-confidence.
 
  • #10
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)

Lol Einstein,Newton, Michio Kaku...one of these things just doesn't belong here!
 
  • #11
WannabeNewton said:
Lol Einstein,Newton, Michio Kaku...one of these things just doesn't belong here!

Yeah, what did that Newton guy ever do for science...
 
  • #12
WannabeNewton said:
Lol Einstein,Newton, Michio Kaku...one of these things just doesn't belong here!

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.
 
  • #13
DennisN said:
What I am trying to say is that I think it's good to remember that we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

"Standing on the shoulders of giants"... I've heard that term before though I never believed in it until now. I also believe in a similar idea (it may sound cliché but it applies perfectly): That humanity has been basically building a incredibly tall building since we evolutionized from apes, every single person has somewhat contributed to that building, some people contribute bigger "bricks" to that building such as the people I mentioned before, and some people "take out" bricks from the building (such as religious people, soldiers fighting in wars, etc.), while other people contribute much smaller "bricks" such as anyone who works in a different profession other than science; that building is the building of knowledge. I know it may seem wrong to automatically assume that any profession other than science (especially physics) and even philosophy is somewhat "inferior", but it really is. I mean think about it: Any other profession basically builds on just humanity (such as economics, politics, etc. and everything else that only applies to us, humans), but the universe is obviously much bigger than us, therefore one can conclude that a study of the universe (science) is drastically more important that a study done on just us humans (all the other careers), these other careers may exist simply because we are so self-centered and that we don't see the "big picture" (that is, the universe that is beyond us), we try to focus most of our attention on politics (especially the pointless wars we fight), economy, fictional stories (also known as religion), etc. But very few of us actually focus on the "bigger picture", which I find somewhat depressing.
 
  • #14
"but the universe is obviously much bigger than us, therefore one can conclude that a study of the universe (science) is drastically more important "

So..you are less important than a rock weighing 200 kilograms?

Again, you have som skewed sense of "objective importance" of different life pursuits that is not just contemptuous, but also deeply..illogical.
 
  • #15
Remon said:
. The man is a genius
He certainly seems to be, but Newton and Einstein are geniuses on a level that make the accomplishments and/or abilities of other geniuses seem average.
 
  • #16
Remon said:
If you're talking about Michio Kaku, then you're wrong. The man is a genius

Sure, the man is a genius. But compared to Newton and Einstein, he looks like a toddler in kindergarten.
 
  • #17
Why is science objectively more important? One can't make a sweeping dismissal of endeavours and achievements based on which category they fall under. Would you really say that knowing why grass is green is a more impressive and significant achievement than the Sistine Chapel? Or that knowing how hair grows is more impressive and significant than the works of Shakespeare? Our judgement of the significance of different accomplishments should be done on a case-by-case basis, not a categorical one.

Great art (including literature, music, visual art, etc.) is inspirational, and it provides perspective, important emotional and intellectual experiences, and pushes us to think critically about ourselves, those around us, and the world in general; great politicians and military men provided leadership and strategic thinking without which the Allies probably would have lost World War II; studying history enables us to learn from past accomplishments and mistakes and to compare current events with past events. Need I go on?
 
  • #18
^sounds like an advertisement for a liberal arts class at my university that no one cares about :)
 
  • #19
WannabeNewton said:
^sounds like an advertisement for a liberal arts class at my university that no one cares about :)

:biggrin:

It was a nice try though, I almost fell for it :-p
 
  • #20
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.

Yeah, he did some brilliant work years ago but he has turned himself into a joke in recent years.

There are numerous threads in this forum that point out exactly what I'm saying. Here are just a couple of places to check that out.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

http://bigthink.com/ideas/26680

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/16/why-do-physicists-think-they-a/
 
  • #21
FreeMitya said:
Why is science objectively more important? One can't make a sweeping dismissal of endeavours and achievements based on which category they fall under. Would you really say that knowing why grass is green is a more impressive and significant achievement than the Sistine Chapel? Or that knowing how hair grows is more impressive and significant than the works of Shakespeare? Our judgement of the significance of different accomplishments should be done on a case-by-case basis, not a categorical one.

Great art (including literature, music, visual art, etc.) is inspirational, and it provides perspective, important emotional and intellectual experiences, and pushes us to think critically about ourselves, those around us, and the world in general; great politicians and military men provided leadership and strategic thinking without which the Allies probably would have lost World War II; studying history enables us to learn from past accomplishments and mistakes and to compare current events with past events. Need I go on?
And why should any of this be "more important" than a grandmother rocking her grandchild to sleep with a lullaby?
 
  • #22
FreeMitya said:
Why is science objectively more important? One can't make a sweeping dismissal of endeavours and achievements based on which category they fall under. Would you really say that knowing why grass is green is a more impressive and significant achievement than the Sistine Chapel? Or that knowing how hair grows is more impressive and significant than the works of Shakespeare? Our judgement of the significance of different accomplishments should be done on a case-by-case basis, not a categorical one.

Great art (including literature, music, visual art, etc.) is inspirational, and it provides perspective, important emotional and intellectual experiences, and pushes us to think critically about ourselves, those around us, and the world in general; great politicians and military men provided leadership and strategic thinking without which the Allies probably would have lost World War II; studying history enables us to learn from past accomplishments and mistakes and to compare current events with past events. Need I go on?

The things you mentioned are exceptions (such as Sistine Chapel and Shakespeare), although, all of this could just be based on one's opinion. For example, one person would rather read Shakespeare than the theory of relativity, another would do the complete opposite (like me), Why? Because different people value different things (which is what creates society), although this is a good thing because if we were all interested in just science (which is similar to a statement I made before), then our society would have nothing but science... which is obviously a problem.
 
  • #23
Remon said:
The things you mentioned are exceptions (such as Sistine Chapel and Shakespeare), although, all of this could just be based on one's opinion. For example, one person would rather read Shakespeare than the theory of relativity, another would do the complete opposite (like me), Why? Because different people value different things (which is what creates society), although this is a good thing because if we were all interested in just science (which is similar to a statement I made before), then our society would have nothing but science... which is obviously a problem.

To be honest, I don't really see the problem with such a society...
 
  • #24
arildno said:
"but the universe is obviously much bigger than us, therefore one can conclude that a study of the universe (science) is drastically more important "

So..you are less important than a rock weighing 200 kilograms?

Again, you have som skewed sense of "objective importance" of different life pursuits that is not just contemptuous, but also deeply..illogical.

When I talked about the universe, I didn't just mean the planets (or rocks as you called them), I also meant energy, matter (both macro and micro), all the different theories, calculations, predictions, etc. Although, I do agree with you because living organisms (especially us) are obviously more important than anything else
 
  • #25
R136a1 said:
To be honest, I don't really see the problem with such a society...

"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 :)
 
  • #26
Remon said:
When I talked about the universe, I didn't just mean the planets (or rocks as you called them), I also meant energy, matter (both macro and micro), all the different theories, calculations, predictions, etc. Although, I do agree with you because living organisms (especially us) are obviously more important than anything else

Actually, I don't know about any planets having a mass of 200 kilograms, but there is a boulder just outside the window of approx. that size.
 
  • #27
arildno said:
Actually, I don't know about any planets having a mass of 200 kilograms, but there is a boulder just outside the window of approx. that size.

I didn't really take the 200 Kg into account... but is this really what we're arguing about? lol
 
  • #28
WannabeNewton said:
^sounds like an advertisement for a liberal arts class at my university that no one cares about :)

If a snide remark is all that you can come up with, then I'm satisfied with my reasoning. Still, I'm not arguing for the importance of studying art academically--though I certainly don't think that it's worthless. I'm just arguing that many different things are important to the human experience, even something as simple as having a good friend. I'm sorry if others think my dislike for, and my fear of, monomania is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
arildno said:
And why should any of this be "more important" than a grandmother rocking her grandchild to sleep with a lullaby?

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.
 
  • #30
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
I thought about this for a while, back when I had just started high school. I noticed that it was a little egocentric to even ask why I'm not important in the grand scheme. Then again, I've never been an element of a locally ringed space, let alone a scheme. :-p

In my opinion, I've been given the opportunity to see something as beautiful as mathematics, and that's enough in itself. I've been given a window into a world where almost everything is more aesthetic and elegant than even the most fascinating parts of the universe we live in. So what if I'm not "the best"? Does that change anything?

russ_watters said:
You are not special and you can't do everything you want. But I don't see how that obvious reality should cause depression unless our society has driven into you for decades the lie that you are special.
In this great land called 'Merica, we are brainwashed with this idea from childhood.

WannabeNewton said:
Lol Einstein,Newton, Michio Kaku...one of these things just doesn't belong here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

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

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top