Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Expert psychologist suggests the era of genius scientists is over

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
The geniuses in the past lived in a world devoid of entertainment. Everyone spends time watching TV and playing video games. The last wave of geniuses ended about the time that movies and cars became common pastimes in the western world. John Taylor Gatto said somewhere that the average person, as a child, has about 9 hours per week to think about himself as an entity in the universe. The last bunch of geniuses, pre WW1, spent up to 100 hours per week thinking about reality and what was possible.


you make a very good point,
in the op i wrote about the type "computer genius" part of pointing that out was the power to "look up" all available information, and searching and locating the "correct" information (out of a sea of information)
but you have benefit of knowing what sources of information had the best "quality" information
and can "narrow down" on specific searches on very specific subjects.
"the physical amount of information available would in past times be a library big enough to get lost in,
without having to search for a books location, and then walking to it, you can access it in seconds.

the availability of vast volumes of information comes to computer users as well




Psychologists think of geniuses as people who score high on intelligence tests. The actual definition of genius is the act of creation, as in genesis or generation. A genius creates something new, or genius is the act of creation itself credited to the person who did it first.


i think this is where the psychologists get it wrong, credit is not needed for the creation or invention of a thing, for its creator to be considered genius. dont confuse the two. IMHO it is the act of innovation, design and invention, it is the act that shares this to the world, that conveys weather some one is genius.
it can be expressed in the arts, science design or even in the use of language.


Invention is a form of activity, and most activities are done best when done for enjoyment. Genius is born of boredom and inspiration.

i would agree, to a point,
it think its true that "Necessity is the mother of all invention"
but intense focus really helps



Geniuses will reappear when the averge, undirected person has a rule of thumb approximation of the totality of human knowledge and there is nothing else interesting to do.



lol now thats funny

curiosity as a force can be very powerful,
"now how does THAT work"

and

"i can design one BETTER than that"



xploder




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Dean Keith is a bit presumptuous.
einstein can be considered genius but his GR is quite utterly wrong.
Known science is still in its infancy, so Geniuses like Newton or Heisenberg
will continue to show up



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Expert psycho here. I say the era of people taking psychologists, psychiatrists, and the drug pushing industry is over. Sorry bub, your industry is in it's death throes, I hope to see you in the unemployment line ASAP.


Psychologists prescribe drugs? Why are you so upset anyways, all the guy did dis make a rather innocuous claim. You hope he loses his job and ends up living on government rations because he said something you don't like, what's your problem?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Dean Keith is a bit presumptuous.
einstein can be considered genius but his GR is quite utterly wrong.
Known science is still in its infancy, so Geniuses like Newton or Heisenberg
will continue to show up



i think Einstein was about as "correct" as you could be at the time,
but we now have space probes and space based telescopes.

an ever increasing sea of data to use to have a better understanding,

imagine if Einstein had the internet to use,



newton was no less important after Einstein

xploder



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
The geniuses in the past lived in a world devoid of entertainment. Everyone spends time watching TV and playing video games. The last wave of geniuses ended about the time that movies and cars became common pastimes in the western world.


Speak for yourself. I know a very large number of individuals who were system identified as of gifted or better iq's, including geniuses--myself included. What is interesting to note about all of us is that, we all have a pretty heavy disdain towards television. At best, we may watch one show but most of the ones that I know do not watch television as a rule. The reason being is that television tends to make us want to stab our eyes out due to the prevalent blistering ignorance portrayed upon it. It's painful to watch and, should we watch some of it, we tend to scream at our televisions. TV isn't the cause for the brain drain.

Video games, at least among the same group that I know, are to be an interest but they're often used as taking a much needed break from reality. It's what keeps a large of number of us sane but the levels to which we game are still not to any extreme in any sense. Of the those that I know that are above the gifted iq range, the average amount of time spent gaming on a weekly basis is a rather pathetic 5.4 hours. Younger ones, however, DO game a whole lot and I agree that that is a coming problem.


Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Psychologists think of geniuses as people who score high on intelligence tests. The actual definition of genius is the act of creation, as in genesis or generation. A genius creates something new, or genius is the act of creation itself credited to the person who did it first.


Actually, you're wrong. The psychologists who were in charge of the specialized programs for the Department of Education were thoroughly embroiled in the Creativity movement. Look it up for yourself. I think that the biggest problem with these programs, that is more likely the source of the brain drain that DARPA is currently facing is that the programs, themselves, while interesting and whatnot, tended to overdo things. I was labelled a mechanical genius and I went from a kid who carefully tore everything apart to see how things worked and rebuilt them, oftentimes better than before to one that held no interest in doing those activities anymore. Again, of the ones that I know, very few of us actually went into our fields of expertise for whatever reason. I can only think of two that did and both of them are working for high level IT related companies as programmers. Why this happened, I do not know but the time period (advent of television) that you refer to is also the time period in which these sort of identifying programs were mandated by Congress to be run by psychologists, (that also factored in creativity for selection btw). Either they did too good of a job of making us laid back individuals or they burned a large number of us out. Your guess may be as good as mine on that one.



Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Geniuses will reappear when the averge, undirected person has a rule of thumb approximation of the totality of human knowledge and there is nothing else interesting to do.


They never went anywhere. They still exist. They just don't do what society expects of them. Try being a kid with the expectation of being a great benefit to society dumped on you from an early age. It's a heavy load.
edit on 5/2/13 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I was going to say, you mean like Steven Hawking?

I would only argue that individual geniuses may dissappear as now advancements are made in groups and teams. Instead of one crazy holing himself up in a lab for years, we now have teams of researchers now gathering and interpreting data.

Doesn't mean that the genius is gone, they just have more than one name.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works. Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge base.


If the man really thinks we know most of what there is to know he does not understand science or its limitations. Have a look at the world of quantum mechanics. It has shown us that we know virtually nothing of the reality of the universe. It also shows us that the tool that we using to understand the universe are limited.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I was going to say, you mean like Steven Hawking?

I would only argue that individual geniuses may dissappear as now advancements are made in groups and teams. Instead of one crazy holing himself up in a lab for years, we now have teams of researchers now gathering and interpreting data.

Doesn't mean that the genius is gone, they just have more than one name.


while it may look that way to an outsider looking at the funding models and international co-operation between countries, i would say that opinion is incorrect.

one person working in isolation from other scientists, (but using the internet as a resource)
designed a transport layer improvement to the "existing" TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol "over" Internet Protocal) using "on the fly" corrections to lost data packets using a forward error correction based on algebra.

this transport uses existing internet hardware and communications platforms and allows for "end to end" transport that uses less resources (hardware) and less packets (bits of information) to transfer information.

it halves the load on existing infrastructure, speeds up data transfer, and allows for security of transport and masks "lost packet data" without resends or slowing down the throughput of transported data.

it was designed with a mindset of "privacy by design"

the effects of this new data transport become important when you consider the following areas,

this packet loss correcting technology allows for "remote robotic surgery"
the delivery of data over a "wireless" network without scaling losses to throughput allow for remote robotic control in near "real time" while lowering the "over head" of transmitted packets.

a fully secure local space network utilising encrypted block chained packets, that can compensate for losses,
and because it uses less packets to transmit the same information, nodes in the network are less consumed by one communication, and can handle more traffic.

while each of these uses are specifically designed by the institutions tasked with their individual use,
without the original person taking the existing technology, and enhancing it,
none of these advancements would be possible.

this all stems from one person working in isolation, who released an algorithm "in plain english"

this does not discount the teams of scientists working on HOW to use the algorithm,
but there would be no need for the team of scientists had the algorithm not existed

so in my opinion the lone genius is alive and well,
weather their work is "understood" or "attributed" is another matter



i dont see us running out of people doing extra ordinary things by themselves in isolation.

xploder

edit on 5-2-2013 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by XPLodER
 





we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works. Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge base.


If the man really thinks we know most of what there is to know he does not understand science or its limitations. Have a look at the world of quantum mechanics. It has shown us that we know virtually nothing of the reality of the universe. It also shows us that the tool that we using to understand the universe are limited.



well said my friend,


i imagine the person who invents or discovers a new tool to investigate the universe,
will be labelled a genius

lol

xploder



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetrarch42
 


Who says I am upset? And yes, I hope his whole industry dies, so that would include him, along with many others looking for new employment. It's not like I wished a plague upon his house or something.....



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Speak for yourself





posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadraphobe
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Speak for yourself




its one example i can use,
there are others,
but this example proves my point


lol
xploder



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


In the past, before some advertizing campaign or poltical pronouncement, genius was a phenomenon. As in, a work of genius. Genius is something new, not an inovation or a developement. I had an English professor who wrote on the blackboard

The Types of Thought

1) Exclaimation/ interjection / feeling / doing
2) Communication
3) Rationalization
4) Creative Thought

Creative thought is actually very rare. It is a thought or idea that has never exsisted before. A biological analogy might be of a successful mutation or speciation.

Anyone can have creative thoughts. The prerequisite is mostly defining the world in your own terms.

Corporations excel at developement, but a corporation has no incentive to invent something genuinely new. There are too many unknowns with new products. In order to maximize the effect of planning, as many things have to be kept constants as possible. Any association seeking to take maximim advantage of its information will want the least possible change in the future. Same for governments.

Genius and invention are activities of individuals. Unless a team is going to follow every whim of one of its members, the team will never access the whole human mind. The team is restricted to what can be symbolized and communicated. There are intermediate stages of thought that cannot be communicated or even captured in memory.

As our society destroys true individualism, so genius will also be lost.

I think that is what is meant here



Since the time of Einstein, he says, no one has really come up with anything that would mark them as a giant in the field, to be looked up to hundreds, if not thousands of years from now. Worse perhaps, he details how the way modern science is conducted is only adding to the problem. Rather than fostering lone wolves pondering the universe in isolation, the new paradigm has researchers working together as teams, efficiently going about their way, marching towards incremental increases in knowledge. That doesn't leave much room for true insight, which is of course, a necessary ingredient for genius level discoveries.


phys.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
this guy is a fool. there is a difference between being a genius, and discovering something. most groundbreaking discoveries have been made by people with sub-genius IQ's.

he also commits a logical fallacy. just because he cannot conceptualize any groundbreaking discoveries does not mean they will not occur. it is more a lack of imagination on his part than the absence of geniuses.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 



Speak for yourself. I know a very large number of individuals who were system identified as of gifted or better iq's, including geniuses--myself included. What is interesting to note about all of us is that, we all have a pretty heavy disdain towards television.


I was usually the dumbest guy in the smart guy group, (perhaps due to laziness) and you are right they watched much less TV than I did.


Video games, at least among the same group that I know, are to be an interest but they're often used as taking a much needed break from reality.


The break from reality used to be thinking about the work of genius.


I was labelled a mechanical genius


So you scored high relative to some kind of intelligence criterion, i.e. an IQ test. You did not create a new mechanical idea or item, but you were still a genius. How am I wrong about this in particular?




They never went anywhere. They still exist. They just don't do what society expects of them. Try being a kid with the expectation of being a great benefit to society dumped on you from an early age. It's a heavy load.



The people of genius that are missing today were conformed away from their nature in order to "make the world safe for democracy", or some other obviously "well meaning" (to sell it) but over reaching collectivist political coup.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


you forget to mention what happens to all these lost individual geniuses ?


This study makes us think about greater efficiencies in academic research can be obtained," said Karim Lakhani, associate professor in the Technology and Operations Management Unit at Harvard Business School. "In a traditional setting, a life scientist who needs large volumes of data analyzed will hire a postdoc to create a solution, and it could take well over a year. We're showing that in certain instances, existing platforms and communities might solve these problems better, cheaper and faster."

Read more at: phys.org...


phys.org

if individuals working together can be more efficient,
wouldn't this mean genius is more effectivly harnessed and more powerfully used?

would this not enable a genius to do much more?

xploder



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Tsk Tsk Tsk...
Remember boys and girls...this is coming from an "Expert Psychologist"...

Ever hear of the term "reverse psychology"?
Perhaps this statement from him was a prompt for society to prove him wrong...like an experiment....muhahahhaaa.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


you forget to mention what happens to all these lost individual geniuses ?


This study makes us think about greater efficiencies in academic research can be obtained," said Karim Lakhani, associate professor in the Technology and Operations Management Unit at Harvard Business School. "In a traditional setting, a life scientist who needs large volumes of data analyzed will hire a postdoc to create a solution, and it could take well over a year. We're showing that in certain instances, existing platforms and communities might solve these problems better, cheaper and faster."

Read more at: phys.org...


phys.org

if individuals working together can be more efficient,
wouldn't this mean genius is more effectivly harnessed and more powerfully used?

would this not enable a genius to do much more?

xploder


in Omni Magazine, back in 1980, there was a story about the Dephi Project.( Delphi something anyway)
A test, IQ or a post graduate college exam, was given to a group of people and the result was evaluted as an IQ. The group always scored a higher IQ than any of the individuals in the group. (A support for complex conspiracy theories). This is what corporations do, using team work to cover all of the bases.

This kind of thought is only rationalization, however. Putting the known together to get expected solutions.

Genius or creative thought is more like serendipidy or insight or enlightenment. When genius happens a quantum difference exsists that never exsisted before.

Team work is a powerful multiplier, but its cost is conventionality. A human imagination is too complicated to match up completely with a language, as teamwork usually requires.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 



in Omni Magazine, back in 1980, there was a story about the Dephi Project.( Delphi something anyway)
A test, IQ or a post graduate college exam, was given to a group of people and the result was evaluted as an IQ. The group always scored a higher IQ than any of the individuals in the group. (A support for complex conspiracy theories). This is what corporations do, using team work to cover all of the bases.

This kind of thought is only rationalization, however. Putting the known together to get expected solutions.

Genius or creative thought is more like serendipidy or insight or enlightenment. When genius happens a quantum difference exsists that never exsisted before.


i would love to teach innovation, now that would be genius lol



Team work is a powerful multiplier, but its cost is conventionality. A human imagination is too complicated to match up completely with a language, as teamwork usually requires.


some of the greatest feats of innovation and invention come from lone individuals who never knew what they were trying to do was considered imposable.

a genius must be both intelligent and able to use that intelligence in a productive or impressive way.

no point being a genius if you are forever in a box and do nothing "outside the box"

team work speeds up the process of gradual innovation, genius takes it to a new level in a jump

xploder
edit on 12/2/13 by XPLodER because: fix brackets



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by XPLodER
 

The basic framework for all of the sciences We know of has been laid and we've discovered the basic principles of what we currently are aware of, so anything new is going to add to existing fields and unknown or yet to be discovered fields.


There i made some corrections.. see the thing is, real genius is rarely ever born in the first place, what most see as genius is merely people with a lot of brain power but real genius isn't about raw intelligence, it's about thinking vastly different than others and being correct(either while alive or long after death) thus changing how others think forever, it can never be predicted when true genius will be born until they shock the world with their insight or until after the world learns what was known by them






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join