What Sets Scientific Geniuses Apart?

[narniaoff]

Hello dear forum members I wanted to know by means of some criteria what
can differentiate our greatests geniuses.Between for example Schwinger, Feynman, Penrose, Hawking and Witten who are (in the order )
_the most imaginative
_the deepests
_the Smartests by their physics ideas
_the mosts influents
_who have best command in mathematics
I need please your own opinion

Thank You

 

[qedprigmosyno]

they can be whoever they want to be, but the number one criteria of ever single "genius" is a hard worker, no exceptions.
Like einstein, I am going to say I dislike the word genius. Usually it's other people who judge who the genius is; thus it is variable, the criteria for setting genius' apart.

 

[narniaoff]

ok whatever but if i can have a little ranking of these well known physicists perhaps i can have some idea of the meaning of a perfect physicist please try to post some ranking according the criteria please

 

[narniaoff]

ok its not interesting i have understand:shy:

 

[AverageJoe]

Honestly this is an impossible criteria.
There is really only academia super stars which a lot of people call geniuses. (Einstein and the like)

But if you're looking for geniuses you really don't have to go very far because most everybody is extremely talented in their own right with something.
In Academia when someone has an epiphany and writes it down they are called a genius, but put those people under a welder's hood or in an engine bay and it's a whole new ball game.

People are skilled at what they are skilled at.

 

[Klockan3]

Honestly this is an impossible criteria.
But if you're looking for geniuses you really don't have to go very far because most everybody is extremely talented in their own right with something.

No, not really.

 

[AverageJoe]

...potatos.

There I countered your rebuttal. :P

 

[rewebster]

some of their books sell higher:

http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=6038&Lot_No=37134&type=book6038-39-temaa012010

Sir Isaac Newton. Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica.


or


http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=6038&Lot_No=37366&type=book6038-39-temaa012010

William Shakespeare. Mr. William Shakespear's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies

 

[cronxeh]

When you have thousands of people staring at something, a concept or a set of equations, and one guy sees the answer, that guy is a genius. Or lucky.

 

[Klockan3]

...potatos.

There I countered your rebuttal. :P

The thing is, your statement means that everyone is a master in their field. This isn't true, while most are certainly able to make an adequate performance they are still nowhere near the top.

When you have thousands of people staring at something, a concept or a set of equations, and one guy sees the answer, that guy is a genius. Or lucky.

When he beats the others over and over and over again the odds are no longer on luck. Please, this topic is not really for the "Geniuses are a myth!" debate...

And I don't really understand why so many on these forums have that viewpoint either. Is it to help your self esteem or what? Sure society have put a bit too much focus on what a few smart people did, but doing the opposite of that is just as wrong. These people where some of the most brilliant or the most brilliant people of their times. You could compare them with top scientists of today, but as in everything else most scientists aren't even close to the top. The difference between the top of a field and a legend is that the legend discovered something monumental, other than that it is really hard to compare since the discoveries of science are certainly not homogeneously distributed.

 

[AverageJoe]

The thing is, your statement means that everyone is a master in their field. This isn't true, while most are certainly able to make an adequate performance they are still nowhere near the top.

Sure most everybody is a master in their field. If they aren't good at something, then they obviously haven't found their field, they are just piddling around in somebody else's.

It's like that ridiculous "gorillas should be football players" discussion going on. We're all just animals who excel at something tremendously, but the majority of us haven't found out what that is. And sometimes it may be just that on average we get one or two eurekas because of the current state of civilization.

Geniuses ARE a myth. There are only the right people, in the right place, at the right time.
Now if you eliminate the latter two with an infinite amount of certainty, then we can start calling a select few people true genius. But of course this is impossible.

 

[Klockan3]

Sure most everybody is a master in their field. If they aren't good at something, then they obviously haven't found their field, they are just piddling around in somebody else's.

Romanticism died over a hundred years ago and it never had anything to do with science. I would love to end here but you obviously do not understand how ridiculous you sound when you talk like this so you think that the retort would be inadequate.

You are assuming that everyone was born to do one thing which they are good at. If some are not good at what they are doing then consequently they must have strayed from their natural path! This is a ridiculous assessment, not only is it not falsifiable by any means but you also lack any form of logical deduction explaining why it would be so!

It is a nice thought, which is why it is abundant in children's stories, but it do not belong in any rational mind. The only rational part is the insight that everyone you meet is most likely better at something than you are. This in no way implies that they are more talented at said thing or that they are exceptionally good at it either but is a logical consequence from the fact that the modern society requires everyone to specialize to maximize productivity. But I would be very surprised if you couldn't find a couple out of the 6 billion people of Earth where one of them are better than the other at everything.

 

[AverageJoe]

Sir, if you ever met me you would know right off the bat I am no romanticist. Saying that I'm assuming something when you yourself are doing the same thing is outright hypocritical. You don't know me nor ever will and I don't know you so I'm not going to tell you that you know or don't know crap. I am truly offended by the smugness in your post.

I didn't say squat about any fictitious "natural path" at all, that stuff is a bunch of malarkey. I said that you are a product of your environment. What education is available to you GREATLY determines how effective you are performing that trade whatever it may be.
Nor did I say that being a master at something makes you a genius, a genius is someone who has mastered their trade and develops a lot of insight which is directly related to how hard you try to think of new things, and that makes only those who have the drive to really make a difference a genius, it's no damn birthright. Thinking that being born a genius is absolutely out of touch with reality. The concept of the natural genius fictitious. Nobody pops out of their mom knowing everything while inventing many new concepts, this is just the delight of movies and the delusional. I dare you to go up to Edward Witten and Stephen Hawking and tell them they don't work damn hard at what they do.

Prove me wrong.

AND on top of all of that I didn't say that people are unfunded masters at exclusively one thing. This too is simply preposterous.

What an impressive vocabulary you have though, full of all those $5 words. You sound like someone who is a theoretical specialist that can't hold a candle to someone that actually gets things done.

And it's closer to seven billion. :P

 

[Klockan3]

Sir, if you ever met me you would know right off the bat I am no romanticist. Saying that I'm assuming something when you yourself are doing the same thing is outright hypocritical. You don't know me nor ever will and I don't know you so I'm not going to tell you that you know or don't know crap. I am truly offended by the smugness in your post.

I am not assuming anything, it doesn't matter to this discussion if genius is derived from nurture or nature. What matters is that some people are just better than others at what they do. This threads topic is about discussing the most prolific attributes of the high profile geniuses through our times.

I didn't say squat about any fictitious "natural path" at all, that stuff is a bunch of malarkey.

So, what is this then about? "Sure most everybody is a master in their field. If they aren't good at something, then they obviously haven't found their field, they are just piddling around in somebody else's.". You are stating that most people have at least one field you can call "their field", and you need to find this field of yours to succeed. This is definitely romanticism and I don't really understand how this fits with your position in this post that:

I said that you are a product of your environment.

What education is available to you GREATLY determines how effective you are performing that trade whatever it may be. Nor did I say that being a master at something makes you a genius, a genius is someone who has mastered their trade and develops a lot of insight which is directly related to how hard you try to think of new things, and that makes only those who have the drive to really make a difference a genius, it's no damn birthright. Thinking that being born a genius is absolutely out of touch with reality. The concept of the natural genius fictitious. Nobody pops out of their mom knowing everything while inventing many new concepts, this is just the delight of movies and the delusional. I dare you to go up to Edward Witten and Stephen Hawking and tell them they don't work damn hard at what they do.

None implied that geniuses didn't have to work or that they didn't need education. My personal position is that most can't get to the point these people got to no matter how hard they work, but as I said that is still not really a part of this thread. The difference between Einstein's approach and Gauss's is not trivial, that is what is important.

AND on top of all of that I didn't say that people are unfunded masters at exclusively one thing. This too is simply preposterous.

Well, this statement still isn't far from giving the impression that this is what you think, even though I agree that it doesn't require that we got exactly one field each:
"Sure most everybody is a master in their field. If they aren't good at something, then they obviously haven't found their field, they are just piddling around in somebody else's.

It's like that ridiculous "gorillas should be football players" discussion going on. We're all just animals who excel at something tremendously, but the majority of us haven't found out what that is."

By the way, rereading your first post it looks like you totally misunderstood the topic creator. He didn't want the attributes required to be a genius, he wanted your opinion on "in what way are the geniuses different from each other".