/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10805342
I don't like idol worship either. They are literally memes, that's why they get discussed constantly and presented to children as examples of "great scientists," and those children go on to propagate those memes again, forever.

Einstein seemed pretty based though. I like the way he thought, or at least the impression I have of how he thought.

>>10805358
I doubt you could ever have an idea of how someone much more intelligent than you thinks.

>>10805342
>literally all this faggot did was get lucky and get born with a high IQ
that is nowhere near all he's done
if he just "got born smart" and then did nothing, you would have some semblance of a point

>>10805429
I mean it's pretty clear from the history of his work.

>>10805342
Their achievements are a combination of nature and nurture.

Also, people who are lucky to have good genetics still ought to be venerated. Results count more than effort.

>>10805451
But smart people do things too. Should a construction worker be venerated for building houses? He was just doing his thing. If I was as smart as him whatever I do would have much more importance too.
>>10805459
Can you emulate a high end gaming pc on the microcontroller inside your toaster?

>>10805471
>Results count more than effort.
Sure, but why does it matter who invented what? It's not like providing incentives of fame and reward will magically produce more high IQ people. The 160s of the world will go and do 160iq things, cool. Why should they receive special attention for being who they are?

>>10805342
Nobody but you cares about his IQ. He's presented as a good example because his reasoning was extraordinary and his approaches worked.

>>10805358
>I don't like idol worship either
I'm not to adverse to some role modeling. Though a /sci/fu for personal development may not be wise for social Que development.

What makes me lose my connotative shit is concepts named after themselves of after them.
There's some things where random naming you can get away with, e.g. Kelvin.
And I'd be fine with AC/DC being Tesla and Edison energy's as there's much more subject relevance between them that it's a great teaching hook.

But shit like Hawking radiation and Killing field vectors. Like just in the fuck does this help science?
Essentially obfuscation of knowledge and even outright misleading names.
Well, that's my Autism and it's painful.

>>10805473
>It's not like providing incentives of fame and reward will magically produce more high IQ people.
It will.

>>10805472
>Should a construction worker be venerated for building houses?
of course

>Einstein
>High IQ

He was a thief with a good marketing team.

>>10805342
Maybe it was because he shared his IQ to the public? You know, Tesla didn't have to give us A.C. He could have left it to chance, but instead he educated the world through his effort.

>>10805342
Why is Kim Kardashian so celebrated figure? She just happened to be born with a big ass.

>>10805342
So hating Einstein is what zoomers are up to now? That's the new cool thing or what? How uninspiring and arrogant, but I guess those two words describe the entire zoomer generation

>>10805473
Because if someones done one good thing they might do another. so pay attention to them.

>>10805429
i feel sorry for you if that is what you believe

>>10806458
What idea do you think ants have about how we think?

>>10806466
ants are not human

>>10805342
if all he did was be born with a high iq then why isnt everyone with his iq famous and successful, and why are the majority of them fairly normal, you sub 120 iq faggot?

>>10806490
>why isnt everyone with his iq famous and successful
Ever heard the term blissful ignorance?

>>10805342
Veneration of great scientists occurs because their work contributed insights which provide much value to many people.
How they got there, how much was hard work, how much was luck, etc. are all arbitrary metrics.
That isn't to say such metrics are totally invalid, but it does somewhat remove your grounds to criticize others for using a differing set of metrics.
It's similar to economics, when you think about it.
Payment is not decided by some almighty force (at least not directly), but is an emergent property of the value contributed to the free market through individuals making deals to do things for one another.

A better analogy would be short people gushing over the fact that some guy who was born into a family of mechanical engineers invented a machine to help short people reach the top shelf.
He didn't decide on his family, or his IQ, or many of his interests, so you could say it's "unfair" that he should be praised, yet he is praised nonetheless because he provided great value to many people.
You could of course make the argument that inventing the machine is not the same as making the framework for allowing the machine to be built, but there are a greater number of people who are capable of capitalizing on these great discoveries than there are who are capable of making the discoveries.

>>10806468
and you don't have an IQ of 160+. how can you understand the thought process of someone like that? I am not all that smart but there are ideas that I can grasp which would be impossible to explain to a literal retard, and my reasoning would be impossible to understand for them at times.

>why are highly intelligent people venerated?
In general, they're not. Most highly intelligent successful scientists toil in obscurity.

The government made a celebrity out of Einstein cause it boosted moral. He gave us nuclear power and the nuclear bomb. Real scientists don't become celebrities, unless they're TV show scientists with an "honorable doctorate."

>>10806609
On mind in place of insects. There's a test done with bees in a simulated environment. Basically Virtual reality if you google it.
The bees were mounted to a stand, where around them was a bi-chromeic pattern scrolled to imitate motion.
The bee didn't try to self right. But flew with the projection.

>another IQ thread

>>10806619
Einstein had less to do with the development of nuclear quantum theory than you think.

>>10806739
I know, which is baffling why it's commonly held belief that he was solely responsible for it.
Most historical figures are inaccurately portrayed anyway, but this feels like it was deliberately done.

>>10806751
>inaccurately portrayed
By whom? The ignorant have many misconceptions. That isn't news.

>>10805342
Why is it always the people who claim to have high IQ that have nothing to show for it?

And why is it always the fool that falls on the shortcut to life as if it is a cheatcode?

>>10806735
I make all of them.
>>10806943
I don't claim to have high IQ. If I had higher IQ I would be able to lead a happy and fulfilling life.

>>10806952
You foolishly fall for the trap of assuming there's an easy route to life. Risk is not without reward. People who accomplish make the hardwork look easy, they don't do it effortlessly.

because he is the closest thing to a God and you are the closest thing to dung beetle

>>10805491
You drive a subaru

He had weird thoughts about time but didn't have the math skills to develop hi ideas. So he asked a friends for math classnotes

He was a smart lazy fuck in college.
Also nazis, portayed his relativity as "jewish Science", because they though the universe was electrical and yada yada. Then other jews made the marketing like they did with Carl Sagan and the guy in the wheelchair

I found out IQ was a meme when I tested 105 multiple times in childhood. I had to take the tests because teachers recommended I go to the advanced class. I was able to complete my Physics degree with a 3.97 and 760 GMAT, and I barely study due to having high memory capabilities.

Passion>Experience>Memory>IQ

>>10805342
Wasn't his first wife responsible for lot of his discoveries

>>10808372
>bragging about undergrad

>>10808377
Well my MBA isn't paraded here as a "high IQ" degree. I make more now than my professors do and have more funding to do my projects (engineering). IQ is a meme past diagnosing cognitive disorders.

>>10808372
>in childhood
Childhood IQ scores are measured relative to your age group. Some kids develop more quickly than others, only to plateau. It's entirely possible that your IQ is much higher now. It's also possible you are an idiot savant with very skewed scores in different categories.

>>10805342
>why are highly intelligent people venerated?

It's a mechanism of rewarding particular DNA which can enhance the our species

>>10805342
There are millions of people born with high IQs who don't get venerated, even those who use it. The reason he did was because he became a media, the problem is idol-worship.

>>10805342
Because he used it in a meaningful way.
Meanwhile.... what are you doing with your gifts, anon?

>>10808803
>with your gifts,
If I had gifts I would be out there doing math or science and not a loser posting on this board. All that separates me from Einstein is luck.

>uhhhhh why do people respect smart people who do smart people stuff
If this is the case then why do we praise anyone for anything? If all athletes were born to be athletes then why do we care? If all great musicians were born to be great musicians then why do we care? If all master architects are born to be master architects then why do we care?

Becuase even though they have a natural inclination to one such art or science it still requires work and dedication to achieve greatness in it. Your example of a tall man reaching a tall shelf is disingenuous becuase the tall man never had to consciously try to improve his height whereas people like Einstein, Aristotle, Heidegger, Rachmaninov, or Kandinsky had to improve through hard work and practice. Do we praise a normal person for achieving master-like ability on the piano? Yes. Then why should we not praise someone for going beyond master-like playing and innovating by discovering a new way to play on the piano?

>>10809109
but that's my point, the work these masters put in is no harder than that which a shelf stacker at a grocery store does. they just have the ability that amplifies the effects of their labor.

>>10809123
But these geniuses don’t achieve normal levels of ability, they go above and beyond what the normal person would be capable of so therefore they are no less deserving of praise than a master chess player who has no natural talent in chess. Here’s a way to quantify it: let’s say that on a range from 0 to 10 lies all skill. 0 is terrible and 10 is being a master. Well if we praise a “normal” (meaning not naturally skilled in his art) person for reaching 10 then why should we not praise a special (meaning naturally skilled in his art) person for achieving a 15?

>>10805342
>It's like gushing over the fact that a tall guy can reach the top shelf of the department store.

Shut the fuck up manlet.

>>10805358
>Einstein seemed pretty based though. I like the way he thought.
"God doesn't play dice"
yikes

>>10809140
but there's no point in comparing them to the normal person. they probably put in way less effort than you do in your work, it just yields greater results than yours because they happened to be born with a faster brain.

>>10809123
>>10809286
hard work and effort is not the only reason to venerate someone, results are an even more important reason

also, people near the top in their field put in both huge effort and natural talent, at that point you need both

>>10805451
The intellectual achievements of people are dependent on IQ, so it doesn't matter if you did something with your brain or not.

>>10809290
results are important, but are the people making the results important? he's just doing his job.

>>10809302
you are making it sound like being able to do something automatically makes it meaningless
I seriously hope that's not what you're getting at here

>>10805473
because its human nature

>>10805496
this

>>10805952
Cancerous is a pretty good one too

>>10806490
because the media picks what's hot and what's not you fucking idiot

>>10809123
Your analogy is really off the mark, bud. Instead comparing Einstein to Jordan would be more apt. Jordan was born tall and athletic. Do we now just say that Jordan became decent in Basketball only because he was born the way he was? Surely not. There were probably 1000s of kids with comparable genes who came out the exact moment Jordan did. But only he became what he did. You know why? An unbelievable dedication that mortals like you and I cannot comprehend. Same with Einstein. Unless you believe that our world is truly and completely deterministic in the strongest possible sense, then you're probably right.

>>10805342
Why are highly successful athletes venerated?

>>10809335
>Unless you believe that our world is truly and completely deterministic in the strongest possible sense, then you're probably right.
on a macroscopic scale at human perceptible timescales, it really is.

>>10810046
good question, but I suspect the average athlete works much harder than the average nerd.

>>10805342
>Jealousy, the post.

>>10810053
>good question, but I suspect the average athlete works much harder than the average nerd.

shouldn't we allow those who are physically handicapped to represent their nations in international sports?

It's only fair, after all.

>>10809109
The person who does that work and has that dedication has a natural inclination to work and to have dedication.
I say that as a person who doesn't praise anyone.

>>10808376
GoogleBooks has a preview of this book comprising of casual letters by that cunt, "In Albert's Shadow". Well, let's just say she doesn't carry over an impression of a particularly lucid person.