What All Great Geniuses Have in Common

[Nano-Passion]

It seems to me that almost all the "geniuses" of society came from prestigious schools...

Why is this?? Does this mean that to make a change (such as in theoretical physics) you have to come out of a ridiculously priced school such as Princeton?

 

[Borek]

Any data to support that claim?

 

[Shackleford]

It seems to me that almost all the "geniuses" of society came from prestigious schools...

Why is this?? Does this mean that to make a change (such as in theoretical physics) you have to come out of a ridiculously priced school such as Princeton?

I think you have it backwards. Many went to prestigious schools because they were exceptional.

 

[Choppy]

Or do the schools themselves become prestigious because people of genius attended them?

 

[eri]

People with a great deal of potential often make that apparent early in life, and thus are accepted to top schools. Going to a top school doesn't make you a genius, but being one makes you more likely to get in.

 

[Ryker]

So it seems to me we've got an exemplary case of ye olde mistaking correlation for causation here, eh?

 

[Nano-Passion]

You guys misunderstood, I mean to actually make an impact (such as the geniuses of the past centuries) you have to go to a prestigious school?

I also said that it SEEMS to me that the people that have made an impact were also from prestigious schools. So I made no specific claim @Borek.

But what if you can't afford one?

 

[Phyisab****]

But what if you can't afford one?

If you're a genius they will be begging you to attend for free.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You guys misunderstood, I mean to actually make an impact (such as the geniuses of the past centuries) you have to go to a prestigious school?

Then we're back to Borek's question - what evidence do you have for this claim?

 

[mmmboh]

Einstein didn't go to a very prestigious school..maybe it is considered prestigious in Germany, I don't know, but you seem to be referring to the top schools in the world/Ivy's.

 

[Pengwuino]

If you're a genius they will be begging you to attend for free.

+1. The best universities want the best students and have the money to bring in the best students. The not so best universities can't bring in the best students so they don't tend to produce the best scientists. It all comes down to the student, though. The atmosphere helps but in the end, a crumby student going to Caltech isn't going to stop being a crumby student JUST because they're at Caltech (if hypothetically a crumby student got in). A great student isn't going to stop being a great student just because they went to Big State University either.

In the end you are what you make of yourself. Hell, I don't even know where most of the big names of physics got their degree from.

 

[MaxManus]

You guys misunderstood, I mean to actually make an impact (such as the geniuses of the past centuries) you have to go to a prestigious school?

I also said that it SEEMS to me that the people that have made an impact were also from prestigious schools. So I made no specific claim @Borek.

But what if you can't afford one?

You are lucky for the best you can do is do is to spend a lot of time with physics. And time is in fact more expensive for the rich than for the poor.Of course you have to spend your time wisely, but here your lower rank school can help you. The bad news is of course that spending a lot of time on a subject to become the best is easier said than done and there are no guarantees But even if you don't become the best you will learn more and get a better job.

 

[twofish-quant]

It seems to me that almost all the "geniuses" of society came from prestigious schools...

Interested in why you think this is the case.

Why is this?? Does this mean that to make a change (such as in theoretical physics) you have to come out of a ridiculously priced school such as Princeton?

Well it's interesting to look at this historically. If you look at the big names in physics a lot of them came from Princeton, Harvard, or MIT. But if you look more closely, you'll find that

1) they ended up in Princeton, Harvard, or MIT, because they didn't have a choice. If you go back to 1935, you'll find that most of the physics departments that exist now, didn't exist then, and

2) Princeton, Harvard, or MIT weren't considered particularly good universities. If you go back to 1930, then the best universities in the world were German, but World War II took care of that. Once you had smart people in one place, then they became prestigious. But prestige tends to have a corrosive impact on an institution.

 

[twofish-quant]

But what if you can't afford one?

Then you are sunk. Which is why it's a good thing if societies make education affordable.

 

[pjmarshall]

in a strange sort of analogy, I would feel simply honored to serve as a soldier amongst those geniuses, such that i am a soldier with his general.

though i am just a soldier, it is far more dutiful than an average citizen

 

[cristo]

Einstein didn't go to a very prestigious school..maybe it is considered prestigious in Germany, I don't know, but you seem to be referring to the top schools in the world/Ivy's.

Didn't Einstein go to ETH Zurich?

Also the term 'Ivy League' did not exist until at least after the war so it doesn't make much sense to talk about the world's best universities in the late 19th century in those terms.

 

[pzona]

I don't think it makes much difference what school you go to if you're passionate about what you do and you do some basic research into a school's strengths before you attend. A degree from a prestigious university is great for your reputation and it does increase your chances of landing a big job, but it doesn't really say much for your level of intelligence.

Work hard and impress the right people at any university, and I can almost guarantee you'll be able to do what you want.

 

[Digitalism]

If you cannot afford one you probably become one of the many "quiet geniuses" that you probably encounter everyday and do not even realize is a genius.

 

[twofish-quant]

A degree from a prestigious university is great for your reputation and it does increase your chances of landing a big job, but it doesn't really say much for your level of intelligence.

But intelligence is not everything. If Albert Einstein grew up in the Sahara Desert in 1300, the fact that he was gifted at math would not amount to anything.

Work hard and impress the right people at any university, and I can almost guarantee you'll be able to do what you want.

Not true. You can work hard, impress the right people, do everything right, and you still might not get what you want or what you deserve. Life is like that.

One thing that you find if you do talk to people that do admissions is that they often think that's a bad job because they have to turn away lots of qualified people because there just aren't enough spaces, and the further you go in academia, the worse it gets.

 

[Shaun_W]

Probably because the rapid expansion of higher education in the West has meant that the universities that are considered prestigious now were the only universities that existed back then.

 

[arildno]

Having worked sometime in senior high (16-18 year olds), I have been presented with some statistics made concerning school impact on the learning curve.

Now, the picture seems to be that for schools with pupils of generally high entry grades, the relative importance for their learning curve due to the school's contribution is much less than for pupils entering schools with low grades.

That is, there is a greater variance in input vs output grades on schools with pupils with low grades than on schools with pupils with high grades.

Teachers, and school environment DO matter, particularly for students with average/sub-average skills/motivations.

For highly ambitious/highly skilled students, schools here in Norway, at least, seem to have little effect, positive or negative.

 

[Nano-Passion]

You are lucky for the best you can do is do is to spend a lot of time with physics. And time is in fact more expensive for the rich than for the poor.Of course you have to spend your time wisely, but here your lower rank school can help you. The bad news is of course that spending a lot of time on a subject to become the best is easier said than done and there are no guarantees But even if you don't become the best you will learn more and get a better job.

"Time is in fact more expensive for the rich than for the poor"... Wow.. Very insightful, I love that line. Do you mind if I use it from time to time? =D

Interested in why you think this is the case.Well it's interesting to look at this historically. If you look at the big names in physics a lot of them came from Princeton, Harvard, or MIT. But if you look more closely, you'll find that

1) they ended up in Princeton, Harvard, or MIT, because they didn't have a choice. If you go back to 1935, you'll find that most of the physics departments that exist now, didn't exist then, and

2) Princeton, Harvard, or MIT weren't considered particularly good universities. If you go back to 1930, then the best universities in the world were German, but World War II took care of that. Once you had smart people in one place, then they became prestigious. But prestige tends to have a corrosive impact on an institution.

Wow, so I don't need to go to a ridiculously priced university that I can't go to in order to fulfill my dream.

Then you are sunk. Which is why it's a good thing if societies make education affordable.

I hope that is not the case?

in a strange sort of analogy, I would feel simply honored to serve as a soldier amongst those geniuses, such that i am a soldier with his general.

though i am just a soldier, it is far more dutiful than an average citizen

Didn't Einstein go to ETH Zurich?

Also the term 'Ivy League' did not exist until at least after the war so it doesn't make much sense to talk about the world's best universities in the late 19th century in those terms.

Interesting.. thanks =]

I don't think it makes much difference what school you go to if you're passionate about what you do and you do some basic research into a school's strengths before you attend. A degree from a prestigious university is great for your reputation and it does increase your chances of landing a big job, but it doesn't really say much for your level of intelligence.

Work hard and impress the right people at any university, and I can almost guarantee you'll be able to do what you want.

Wow thanks, you definitely cleared up my question!

But intelligence is not everything. If Albert Einstein grew up in the Sahara Desert in 1300, the fact that he was gifted at math would not amount to anything.

Not true. You can work hard, impress the right people, do everything right, and you still might not get what you want or what you deserve. Life is like that.

One thing that you find if you do talk to people that do admissions is that they often think that's a bad job because they have to turn away lots of qualified people because there just aren't enough spaces, and the further you go in academia, the worse it gets.

Well maybe they aren't doing everything right. If you do "everything" then I reckon there shouldn't be any fault. But who does everything right?

Ideally, making yourself stand out and get noticed among the scientific community in a contributory manner is probably what really counts. That is how Erik Erikson (in pshychology) who was a high school dropout became known as a very big scientific image later on.

Probably because the rapid expansion of higher education in the West has meant that the universities that are considered prestigious now were the only universities that existed back then.

Having worked sometime in senior high (16-18 year olds), I have been presented with some statistics made concerning school impact on the learning curve.

Now, the picture seems to be that for schools with pupils of generally high entry grades, the relative importance for their learning curve due to the school's contribution is much less than for pupils entering schools with low grades.

That is, there is a greater variance in input vs output grades on schools with pupils with low grades than on schools with pupils with high grades.

Teachers, and school environment DO matter, particularly for students with average/sub-average skills/motivations.

For highly ambitious/highly skilled students, schools here in Norway, at least, seem to have little effect, positive or negative.

I think it is the teachers' faults.. Yes I blame it all on them. They teach all their material in a droning manner... I remember my teacher telling me you are made up of cells...But do they really stop and make the students REALLY think and ponder about the complexity of their surroundings?! Do they stop and make you look at the big picture, connecting all bits and pieces together. Do they stop and think about making it interesting instead of dull and monotonous?

Many teach us mathematical equations and such.. but do they stop and make the students really think about the beautiful INTRICACY of a couple letters/numbers that can EXPLAIN life around them!

No, they do not; rather, they worry about teaching the curriculum. I was blessed and lucky enough to have a couple teachers that actually carry over the passion to the next generation.. The rest can all ... I'll leave it at that.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well it's interesting to look at this historically. If you look at the big names in physics a lot of them came from Princeton, Harvard, or MIT. But if you look more closely, you'll find that

1) they ended up in Princeton, Harvard, or MIT, because they didn't have a choice. If you go back to 1935, you'll find that most of the physics departments that exist now, didn't exist then, and

2) Princeton, Harvard, or MIT weren't considered particularly good universities. If you go back to 1930, then the best universities in the world were German, but World War II took care of that. Once you had smart people in one place, then they became prestigious. But prestige tends to have a corrosive impact on an institution.

hmmm...

Didn't you win the best new PF person award last year?

Have you met Char.Limit yet?

 

[brainstorm]

Genius expresses itself in terms of the language and concepts it discovers available to it. Genius surrounded by legos will express itself in lego-creations. Genius surrounded by theologists will express itself in theological language. Genius speaking Latin will express itself in Latin, German in German, English in English. Genius may also express itself in the ability to operate translinguistically. Genius is like a strong electric charge. It will branch out in every possible direction with emphasis on the path of least resistance but not containable by it.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think it is the teachers' faults.. Yes I blame it all on them. They teach all their material in a droning manner... I remember my teacher telling me you are made up of cells...But do they really stop and make the students REALLY think and ponder about the complexity of their surroundings?! Do they stop and make you look at the big picture, connecting all bits and pieces together. Do they stop and think about making it interesting instead of dull and monotonous?

Many teach us mathematical equations and such.. but do they stop and make the students really think about the beautiful INTRICACY of a couple letters/numbers that can EXPLAIN life around them!

No, they do not; rather, they worry about teaching the curriculum. I was blessed and lucky enough to have a couple teachers that actually carry over the passion to the next generation.. The rest can all ... I'll leave it at that.

That's not their job though for the most part. There have been some great discussions about how students are under the misconception that learning is a passive activity, something where the teacher throws information at you and you just need to soak it in and the professor must make it interesting for you. Students need to learn WHY they're learning this, they need to be the ones to ask questions, take the extra step to go beyond the lecture, and become motivated to learn. Let's face it, it's tough finding people with the knowledge to teach subjects at the level of a university. Demanding they do that plus be able to communicate to students why it should be important in a way each and every one of them can absorb is asking too much.

University isn't elementary school. You're there to learn because you want to learn, not because your parents told you to go... although some people are like that :(

 

[brainstorm]

That's not their job though for the most part. There have been some great discussions about how students are under the misconception that learning is a passive activity, something where the teacher throws information at you and you just need to soak it in and the professor must make it interesting for you. Students need to learn WHY they're learning this, they need to be the ones to ask questions, take the extra step to go beyond the lecture, and become motivated to learn. Let's face it, it's tough finding people with the knowledge to teach subjects at the level of a university. Demanding they do that plus be able to communicate to students why it should be important in a way each and every one of them can absorb is asking too much.

University isn't elementary school. You're there to learn because you want to learn, not because your parents told you to go... although some people are like that :(

Yeah right, but if I fail your class it's your fault not mine! Just kidding, good post. I wish administrators would think like this.

 

[Nano-Passion]

That's not their job though for the most part. There have been some great discussions about how students are under the misconception that learning is a passive activity, something where the teacher throws information at you and you just need to soak it in and the professor must make it interesting for you. Students need to learn WHY they're learning this, they need to be the ones to ask questions, take the extra step to go beyond the lecture, and become motivated to learn. Let's face it, it's tough finding people with the knowledge to teach subjects at the level w
University isn't elementary school. You're there to learn because you want to learn, not because your parents told you to go... although some people are like that :(

First I want to say that I was talking about lower level education (middle school to high school). The pre-pubescent and adolescent age is when kids are most malleable. This is when their attitudes and beliefs mainly form about school and other aspects of life.

It isn't the teacher's job but it should be. If we had more people taught to TRULY appreciate the world's complexity then the world would be much different than from what it is today. We are in the 21st century, no longer in the middle ages where it should be simple pieces of information thrown at you to soak like a sponge.

You say students need to learn WHY they are learning but how are they to do that when the teacher hinders this by simply making the atmosphere of regurgitating information. This isn't what teaching is about, and if that is the definition...then it is what it SHOULDN'T be about.

Taking extra steps beyond the lecture and being motivated to learn should be in the responsibility of the teacher. You are not born to do this. It is a learned behavior (referring to pshychology); only through society do you acquire this.

 

[brainstorm]

Taking extra steps beyond the lecture and being motivated to learn should be in the responsibility of the teacher. You are not born to do this. It is a learned behavior (referring to pshychology); only through society do you acquire this.

You forget that some students are resistant to being motivated for social-cultural reasons. I.e. they think school is for suckers. You can make it the teacher's responsibility but the students will gladly accept responsibility for discouraging the teacher as much as they can. They are simply convinced that the world runs on other knowledge than academic knowledge, and they may be right (sadly).

 

[Pengwuino]

First I want to say that I was talking about lower level education (middle school to high school). The pre-pubescent and adolescent age is when kids are most malleable. This is when their attitudes and beliefs mainly form about school and other aspects of life.

It isn't the teacher's job but it should be. If we had more people taught to TRULY appreciate the world's complexity then the world would be much different than from what it is today. We are in the 21st century, no longer in the middle ages where it should be simple pieces of information thrown at you to soak like a sponge.

You say students need to learn WHY they are learning but how are they to do that when the teacher hinders this by simply making the atmosphere of regurgitating information. This isn't what teaching is about, and if that is the definition...then it is what it SHOULDN'T be about.

Taking extra steps beyond the lecture and being motivated to learn should be in the responsibility of the teacher. You are not born to do this. It is a learned behavior (referring to pshychology); only through society do you acquire this.

Ah then yes, it certainly is on more on the teacher if you're talking about K-12 education. It's unfortunate that for the most part, high school teachers are the ones who didn't have much motivation in their studies in the first place so that doesn't translate well to students. Though that topic is a whole 'nother ball game.

 

[Grimstone]

what they all have in common is that everyone around them, thought they were "odd".
story be told. Einstein could not tie his own shoe. true or not. I don't know. I didn't ask.
Many others could remember formulas that was 20 lines of code but could not remember if they ate that day. they are all "odd" not to say the guy you stuffed in the locker last week for being odd is a genius.

 

[disregardthat]

If you cannot afford one you probably become one of the many "quiet geniuses" that you probably encounter everyday and do not even realize is a genius.

I don't believe in such a thing as an uneducated(-self or not) genius.

 

[OmCheeto]

But intelligence is not everything. If Albert Einstein grew up in the Sahara Desert in 1300, the fact that he was gifted at math would not amount to anything.

But the fact that he was a genius may have manifested itself in other ways.

I'm not saying the story of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kamkwamba" proves he's a genius, but it's impressive none the less that a 14 year old son of farmers growing up in the middle of Malawai could construct an electric power generating windmill, with only a book and a bunch of junk as resources. But the fact that everyone in his village, including his family, thought he had gone mad, kind of implies that he was.

As was already stated:

Genius surrounded by legos will express itself in lego-creations.

 

[Nano-Passion]

You forget that some students are resistant to being motivated for social-cultural reasons. I.e. they think school is for suckers. You can make it the teacher's responsibility but the students will gladly accept responsibility for discouraging the teacher as much as they can. They are simply convinced that the world runs on other knowledge than academic knowledge, and they may be right (sadly).

That is what they have learned through society and peers, you can change their perception. The human brain or certain thought processes is a surprisingly malleable phenomena. Take for example morals, ethics, or non-instinct behavior apparent in everyday life. A large part of what you see is socially constructed; and with that also comes malleability.

what they all have in common is that everyone around them, thought they were "odd".
story be told. Einstein could not tie his own shoe. true or not. I don't know. I didn't ask.
Many others could remember formulas that was 20 lines of code but could not remember if they ate that day. they are all "odd" not to say the guy you stuffed in the locker last week for being odd is a genius.

I really don't know where you are getting your information from?

Anyhow whether your information is true or not, you have a confusion with correlation and causation.

Are they geniuses because they are odd? Or are they odd because they are self-indulged in the world and knowledge around them that they pay less attention to what other people find as "normal"?

I don't believe in such a thing as an uneducated(-self or not) genius.

I think he means that they have the potential to be a genius.

I think it is safe to say that to be a "genius" you need to master your area of mastery. Psychologists speculate that it takes around 10 years to master a specialization (be it physics or even ballet).

Though people have potential, unleashing your potential or not is the key point.

 

[disregardthat]

Though people have potential, unleashing your potential or not is the key point.

Yes, I believe it to be a key point. Geniuses have to evolve through hard mental work as everyone else. I don't think that the potential is just silently waiting to be unleashed at some point of choice for a person who have the potential to be recognized as a genius.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Yes, I believe it to be a key point. Geniuses have to evolve through hard mental work as everyone else. I don't think that the potential is just silently waiting to be unleashed at some point of choice for a person who have the potential to be recognized as a genius.

It is a long process, but ultimately the thought processes and habits that you choose to indulge is is what separates you from the crowd, or let's you blend oh so harmoniously.

 

[Grimstone]

I know people who's though possesses are a,b,c,d,e,f,g. there is no other way for them. I define them as linear thinking.
then there is the guy that starts at one letter and may take the most absurd path you ever seen, but in the end arrives at the destination.
this I define as abstract thinking.

wish is more intelligent? the thought that is defined and follows the path that is set before them. or the thoughts that wander around each letter looking for a new path, for the thrill of a new path?
classic example.
we live on a rock. that rock is like many other rocks in the universe. what is it that you do that can make a true difference on such a scale?

The linear thinker automatically says "nothing"
the abstract thinker will pick up a rock. and move it. "that rock will never be in the same place as before. I have made a change in the universe. small as it may be."

this is not to say that a linear thinker can't be a genius, but I believe that more abstract thinkers are more likely to be so. and thus because they do not fit the "norm" of social perception. are thus, thought Odd.

 

[brainstorm]

this is not to say that a linear thinker can't be a genius, but I believe that more abstract thinkers are more likely to be so. and thus because they do not fit the "norm" of social perception. are thus, thought Odd.

What I think you mean to do is to distinguish between conformist thought and non-conformist though. Intelligence can be expressed in both but only gets recognized as genius in non-conformist thought, I believe, because conformist thought usually leads to predictable results. Putting a lot of energy into non-conformist (i.e. independently-creative) thought and work leads to interesting results, but the reason those seem "special" is because they are defined in comparison with "normal," i.e. non-special, things. So, once again you run into the problem of normativity and conformity determining how the results of thought are labeled and viewed.

Without conformity/normativity, it wouldn't matter whether thought/work was special "genius" or not. The only issue would be utility. If something is useful, you use it. Normative evaluations form an intermediary filter between thought and action (or better said: between conception and utilization).

 

[WhoWee]

What I think you mean to do is to distinguish between conformist thought and non-conformist though. Intelligence can be expressed in both but only gets recognized as genius in non-conformist thought, I believe, because conformist thought usually leads to predictable results.

Don't most leaps occur when "predictable results" have been exhausted and a non-conformist approach yields a result?

 

[RoughRoad]

Ramanujan NEVER attended even a decent school or college in his life!

 

[PhysDrew]

Ramanujan NEVER attended even a decent school or college in his life!

Ah good example RoughRoad! Indeed Ramanujan had almost no formal trainng in maths, and was taken to Cambridge I think, and he soon died because it was said he just couldn't fit into his new life (died of malnutrition and other things I think). So the prestige school and surrounding actually killed him!
By the way his story is amazing. You should read it if you haven't heard of him.

 

[ebits21]

I really don't know where you are getting your information from?

Anyhow whether your information is true or not, you have a confusion with correlation and causation.

Are they geniuses because they are odd? Or are they odd because they are self-indulged in the world and knowledge around them that they pay less attention to what other people find as "normal"?

There is some truth in this actually. High functioning autistics, known as savants or asberger's syndrome, are often considered to be at the genius level in their area of expertise. Many have extraordinary memory for things like numbers. Kim Peek, they guy who inspired rain man, is a great example. He memorized 12,000 books, reading them two pages at a time (one with the left eye, one with the right). People with autism almost universally have a very difficult time interacting with people and understanding them, so they seem odd. Einstein also had autistic traits, such as having early speech difficulties.

I think the most common element in genius is that they are driven and fascinated to learn as much about a certain topic as they can. If they think differently I don't think it's because of conformist education, but because they seek out materials and ideas on their own and obsess over them.

 

[Isaacsname]

I know people who's though possesses are a,b,c,d,e,f,g. there is no other way for them. I define them as linear thinking.
then there is the guy that starts at one letter and may take the most absurd path you ever seen, but in the end arrives at the destination.
this I define as abstract thinking.

wish is more intelligent? the thought that is defined and follows the path that is set before them. or the thoughts that wander around each letter looking for a new path, for the thrill of a new path?
classic example.
we live on a rock. that rock is like many other rocks in the universe. what is it that you do that can make a true difference on such a scale?

The linear thinker automatically says "nothing"
the abstract thinker will pick up a rock. and move it. "that rock will never be in the same place as before. I have made a change in the universe. small as it may be."

this is not to say that a linear thinker can't be a genius, but I believe that more abstract thinkers are more likely to be so. and thus because they do not fit the "norm" of social perception. are thus, thought Odd.

When we say the " Often the best solution is the simpliest. " is that because we always tend to overcomplicate things ? Is that why they are so easily overlooked ? For me, personally, when I finally understand something in a way that relates to what I already know, and understand how it fits, it is usually so simplistic in nature, so..far removed from the original question that there is that facepalm moment.

The proverb of " If you want to find the easiest way to do a hard job, give the job to a lazy man ", implies that the sometimes brilliant solution can come from somebody who appears mentally flaccid .

I have an interesting vantage point from this, in the respect I dropped out of high school. I had started school 2 grades early, later held back 2 years, failed 9th once, gave up and got my GED and went to earn associate's in commercial design/graphic art . Then I immedietly went to work as a chef.

But I always had a fascination for learning things, read at college freshman level in 3rd grade, etc, at the same time, a total pain in the rear problem child.lol. An interesting turning point for me was in 2nd grade, where I had unknowingly stumbled onto Vedic type maths, but was berated by a frustrated teacher for doing so.

I was immedietly stricken with the thoughts " Are there different modes of thought for arriving at the same results , and how exactly do we see the world , store and access the information ? " ..." Is consensual reality merely a matter of semantics ? "

Could it be...? What was to be gained by willfully accepting only that which was being taught, when I realized that by my own logical deductions, I could get the same result faster ? I knew that I was being taught by somebody who had no passion, even at that age, but this also made me very interested in actually espousing traditional learning and education to some extent, at least what I was being offered, and trying to arrive at the same logical end conclusions of the great thinkers.

It made sense to me that were I able to follow the same trains of thought, and intuitional forays into things, that there would be perhaps a deeper fundamental understanding of how things relate, and why they relate, more importantly.

Now I'm 38, and going back to school this fall after a life of working and studying things on my own. I've seen demonstrated time and time again, that unorthodox thinking is where brilliance is found, the " outside the box " thoughts, that for some reason or another is overlooked. I posit simplicity. I did quite well for myself in the restaurant business because I was so good at making things simple.

Some would say that a chef has no understanding of science or physics, I would counter that cooking is physics you can eat with a little poesis thrown into boot.

But enough about me

I love to listen to Feynman talk about looking at things from a different perspective, this also is the outside-the-box thinking, imho.

An interesting story:

Last summer, while studying some things relating to the oil spew in the Gulf, I met a chemist omline who had worked for BP in Alaska. He told me that they had a problem on a platform with a type of automatic/manual switch mechanism of some sort that would get iced over. It was a fairly big problem, apparently detrimental to the operation.

The solution was found by a high school dropout, apparently somebody who has a name in the petroleum industry for being a self-taught genius , and is actually hired from time to time for engineering consulting purposes ( I'm not making this up )

* scribbled on a piece of paper *

" Remove both faceplate mounting screws of switch, pull switch out, rotate 180 degrees and reinsert into faceplate. "

40k he was paid for this...

Genius

 

[EntropicLove]

Yeah Ramanujan lived in a small farming village in India in the middle of nowhere.

Of course after he was discovered he quickly went to oxbridge where he did prolific amount of work. Mind you which considerable amount of it was wrong.

 

[Raphie]

I was immedietly stricken with the thoughts " Are there different modes of thought for arriving at the same results , and how exactly do we see the world , store and access the information ? " ..." Is consensual reality merely a matter of semantics ? "

Isaacsname, if you are not familiar wth Emile Durkheim, you ought to be, at least on the basis of the thoughts you have expressed. Key phrase: "Collective Representations."

A specific book I would recommend is his last work, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" (But, to provide a proper context, you might want to read a bit about that which constitutes a "Social Fact" first.)


Raphie

 

[Isaacsname]

Isaacsname, if you are not familiar wth Emile Durkheim, you ought to be, at least on the basis of the thoughts you have expressed. Key phrase: "Collective Representations."

A specific book I would recommend is his last work, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" (But, to provide a proper context, you might want to read a bit about that which constitutes a "Social Fact" first.)


Raphie

Interesting, Ralphie. Yes, this is similar to many conclusions I've had about things, I find sociology fascinating, the dynamics of societies and groups and how things are held in the public eye within them. The wax and wane of trends and beliefs is a window into how easily people are manipulated, Asch's conformity experiments are today's living for many, ie: things like flash mobs. Mirror neuron studies, I believe, will open a new door in how we understand functional societies and the subtle things that drive them. Vilayanur Ramachandran's work is fascinating, if not a little out of my scope of current understanding, but still..

Happy to have made your aquaintance on PF, I will do some reading tonight, Durkheim's first on the list.

Take care,

Isaac