I don't think the concept of "genius" is a scientific one. The reality is that, in science as well as in all intellectual fields, there is a continuum of skills, with no magical point that labels one as a genius. So Einstein is not famous because of his skills, but because of his startling discoveries. He's peerless because few discoveries can be as amazing as relativity theory. However, from the technical standpoint, there have been countless discoveries that required more skills, only they are not as "sexy" as relativity theory. Think about the impact of discoveries. For example, isn't the transistor an invention that has impacted the world much more than relativity? Without any doubt, but it's not as cool as relativity in the mind of people, so the inventors are not labeled Einstein level.
For a while people were calling Elon Musk a genius from his achievements alone, instead of looking at his intelligence. I find this view of genius lazy. Genius is someone who is highly intelligent. If you're not experienced enough to know what intelligence is you can't measure it, so you might as well fall back to achievements as a pseudo intelligence measurement. But achievements aren't intelligence. Achievements are closer to privilege than intelligence, being in the right time at the right place with the right inspiration and tenacity to achieve. (I am a scientist with achievements btw.)
@@MikaelJSandersson Real geniuses get persecuted and oppressed by academics and then their ideas are stolen usually involving bad-faith collaboration attempts and breached NDAs. They reward glorified lab techs that are more akin to multitasking home cooks and housewives than real scientists that innovate. They produce large amounts of data on the worthless crap that they research which they then use to create the appearance of productivity "papers and grants etc. It's bad enough that they waste so much money, but they actively fight against real innovation at the same time. We are basically paying most cancer researchers to fight against cures. We should burn it all down and allow the real geniuses to flourish. "Bring out the guillotines!"
Because genius often looks like crazy and crazy can often look like genius. One of the things that makes something genius is other people's inability to see the genius in the first place. People will only start recognizing your thinking as genius when your "crazy" ideas are actually proven to be genius. And you'll likely have to undergo a lot of criticism and you will need fortitude. And it doesn't hurt to be born rich.
I've found that handing over an idea to a person is assuming the risk that they may misuse or misinterpret it. Social and financial obstacles have certainly suppressed many great minds; the world is not ready, and might not deserve, to advance. 😢
It’s crazy to think there’s probably an Einstein-level genius somewhere in the world RIGHT NOW but they’re working on a farm and have no way to express their immense gifts
Ive met one. Literly, works at a farm. I was 13 at the time, he was 16. I can guarantee you his IQ was genius level, he did everything super fast super easy. To add more context, I was in therapy with him and another guy. We sucked socially basically, but it was obvious we were all not normal intelligence. He stood out the most. Completely different level. I wish I could find out where he is now.
160 IQ really isn't that rare. Not even 180 is that exceptional that you never come across it. Go play some video games or chess and the really strong players are all around there. What is more special is someone who supposedly was at only 125 IQ but simultaneously might be the clearest example of what a genius really means. But to be fair to Einstein and Feynman respectively, neither of these numbers actually make much sense if you know a lot about the subject.
@@michaelibrahim1443 Feynmans self reported IQ was 125. And it's not exactly wrong either, you can easily meet someone with similar personality as Feynman with an IQ of 125. At any rate we have no real reason to not take this seriously and the message is that one can be a peerless genius without needing to be exactly in the Terrence Tao region of IQs. Of course, IQ means very little and if you want to believe Feynman had a higher IQ than that, most people will agree with you.
From a young age I was always fascinated by geniuses like Einstein, Isaac Newton, Ramanujan and always wondered what can I do to achieve their levels of success. As I grew older I read more about their lives and realized that the level of intelligence they had was not the only factor in their success. They pretty much sacrificed other parts of their lives to keep doing their work. No matter how much innate intelligence you have, without hard work and commitment you cannot invent or discover something new. A lot of people who are told they are smarter than everyone else at a young age tend to be lazier because they assume most things will be easy to learn for them. This can lead them to have a shallow understanding on certain topics and might cause them to do bad in exams or miss a working opportunity later in life.
I do agree with a lot of what you say here and I am glad you wrote it in a sense of not being completely deterministic of your groupings of people. Saying "a lot of people" instead of saying "all of them" is a fantastic way to convey the highest likelihood and leaving that possible 1% our of a 100%, you are being a true scientist acknowledging the fact that almost nothing is 100%. With all that said, when I was young and given an intelligence test at 11, my test taker refused to tell me what I scored. He only told me my percentage which is in the 99th percentile, of which I asked him why dont I get straight A's in school if I'm supposedly so smart. His answer was no doubt the best he could come up with by telling me I most likely dont apply my self enough to get all straight A's. In retrospect for me personally, I feel it would have benefited me if I was told my actual score. I learned the score finally a year ago when I was 41 and had another test given in which I well once again wasn't given the score since this time I went above what the test scores, so they could only estimate what I actually scored. I feel though if I was told what I received on the test, I would have tried harder in school and then life in order to live up to my possibilities. I grew up believing I was mediocre at best and also believing IQ tests were bullshit since I still never actually got all A's ever. Another thing about this video that interests me is, this guy based the term "genius" on ones accomplishments and not what they scored on an intelligence test. That is very interesting to me, and he leaves it open to someone who scores a 90 IQ to be capable of being considered "genius" simply based on some accomplishment. I actually like that possibility this video implies, as it puts less pressure on those who score in the supposed genius level of the IQ. Being called a genius solely based on some test puts immense pressure to perform that I feel is to a debilitating amount. Anyways, hope my ramblings are coherent and thought provoking and hope you have a great day too lol
if you are responding to my comment then I believe my point was missed. I was acknowledging that the video itself didn't really give a clear view of what they considered "genius" other than some achievement they accomplished. What do you consider a genius?@@cagneybillingsley2165
@@cagneybillingsley2165sometimes it is, sometimes not. You can gain knowledge and improve your intelligence over time but the older you get the harder it gets to improve yourself
The last lines of this talk really struck me. Because virtually everyone who creates genius level stuff needed a teacher or mentor who was devoted to helping them, so that in their early years especially they could pursue those original ideas and were encouraged to do so. I wonder if we should look at genius as a complex combination of native talent, access to an environment that allows that talent to do something, and personal/social support that helps it. The irony is that the system of publishing quantity over quality and the denigration of teaching in favor of pointless faculty committees that dominates so many modern universities is probably discouraging genius and even good scholarship in those universities.
Perhaps unintentionally you described the Renaissance almost exactly. Henceforth, we had so many more "geniuses" during that era of human history due to societal push and support.
I wholly agree on everything you're mentioning, but I contend that talent is merely a repeatable skillset and not an exclusive feature of the human condition in itself*; as you have expressed the mentor and the environment are instrumental in fostering genius, else the genius flounders and dies on the vine. Sadly, this happens more often than not since -as a species- we tend to squash out-of-the-box thinking, unless of course, it prevails in some manner which initiates retrograde enthusiasm in the form of accolades in its many forms. *I don't mean to say anyone can be a genius since there can be (and often are) genetic variables to consider, but what most refer to as talent I consider as 'potential'. The idea that talent is purely inherent to some people and not others is another way of squashing potential since current usage of 'talent' carries a sense it will blossom despite any obstacles. Ultimately, I believe more genius is lost to environment than to the rarity of geniuses as a whole.
Srinivasa Ramanujan was a true, peerless genius. He was not born in a society or culture where there was any kind of exposure to such a scientific community and yet, his contribution to the scientific world is huge.
He was an odd ball. No formal education, just picked up a maths book in early teenage and from there begins his unbelievable story. He was one of a kind. Even hardy was blown away when he realised that letter was written by a young man with no academic background.
I am nowhere close to a genius myself, but have been surrounded by many I would consider to be "geniuses" in my life. I used to be in the astrophysics field, and met people who worked on things like LIGO and space robotics that just seemed to think on a completely different plane of existence. Even back in my undergrad level, there was a peer of mine that just seemed to naturally understanding every concept thrown at him that I would spend 20 hours studying just to have a toddler's grasp of the subject.
@@Frisbieinstein I disagree, the gap maybe large, but fields like physics, chemistry or even economic etc. are why more likely to have near genius in there midst, because concepts in reality can exceed the complexities of purely theoretical studies like maths.
My father used to say anyone can work with language if given the alphabet, but to create with no knowledge of an alphabet is pretty impressive. I think we are missing opportunities to solve problems by failing to join academics in differing fields of study, and by not ignoring artificial boundaries our societies erect to divide researchers up( selfish competition ).
@@WanderTheNomad not all humans are like this. Business has its problems but is always cross pollinating. I think "humans" are normally taught "different" subjects in school from a young age and by the time they're into an adult academic career they're so used to that they don't mind and rarely question. (Also creative and dyslexic thinking people who might make more 'bridging' connections in their brains aren't very well accommodated in universities because the 'bridging' connections they make in their brains are too unconventional and too often wrong. I think you 'pay' for the good new ideas with several bad new ideas, but most of academia doesn't like any of that kind of drawing outside the lines, they want to keep things tidy.)
Remember everyone, genius is not exclusive to science. Genius in Latin is “guiding spirit present at birth” so it has nothing to do with any particular area of study. He’s right: genius is a story. You don’t need to be exceptional at math or science to be a genius. Go be great at what you love and create your story to last lifetimes
correct. we only tend to recognize Math/Physics geniuses, but there have been many other geniuses that people like to ignore. Art genius Military Genius Engineering genius (most overlooked) Economic Genius Business Genius etc...
Business geniuses are ignored ? Maybe I'm pretty fond of reading about business ideas, but with the huge growth of entrepreneurial dreams amongst people isn't that actually becoming common
Something that’s always been interesting to me is that while mathematicians and scientists frequently make their most important discoveries early in life (20-30), composers and writers tend to produce their best works later in life (35-60.) For example, Beethoven’s 9th symphony and Bach’s Mass in B Minor were written shortly before each composer’s death. Even though Mozart was a child prodigy and died at the age of 35, two of his best known works (Symphony 40 and Requiem) were written in his last few years.
That's true for the writers of symphonies but pop musicians typically have only a few years of hit songs. Indeed if you have more than one you are doing very well.
@@eyvindjr It can happen but there aren 't very many Nile Rogerses or Eric Claptons. How long has it been since Stevie Wonder had a hit song? All of Paul McCartney, Boz Scaggs, Donald Fagen, Brian Wilson, Stevie Winwood, and the three Fleetwood Mac stars each had maybe five golden years. This seems typical to me, and I believe I could make a much longer list.
I talked with Dr. Peter Saulson just yesterday, one of the lead researchers for the LIGO project. He said he was surprised early on in his career that test scores seem to have nothing to do with whether or not someone was a good researcher, rather, resilience and emotional intelligence were the real determining factor of success, and these were not taught or tested.
@@rollyjolly3076 I'd say there are two types of "EQ" how you process personal feelings vs how you process external feelings of others. Einstein definitely failed at the latter but the former would be more beneficial for researching
@@rollyjolly3076 You need to look into all the things that go into a diagnosis of being autistic. Being intelligent does not necessarily mean you're autistic
They’re easier to work with. It’s the same reason why most genius ideas become unrecognized; because they are less refined and harder to understand than practical concepts.
Nobody said thinkers arnt workers. Without ideas what would workers do? Oh yeah, work pointless jobs or produce crap that pollutes our environment. Sounds like stagnation to me. Look at Africa if you want an example.
Living in Brazil for the last 24 years ever since I was born I noticed how many brilliant and creative people are out there, the sad thing is, most people here (and in other countries as well) don't get the opportunity to get a proper education and go to a good university or work and research a subject they enjoy fully, most of the time people don't get the time to work on their ideas and dream projects because they're too busy on the run to survive, looking for ways to earn money to drink, eat and pay their bills. It is our duty to work towards a world where everyone has the opportunity to develop their intellect and creativity, even if it's one small step at a time, but on long terms it could bring so many fruits to science and humanity as a whole.
A few months ago I had a chance to attend Mr. Barabási’s seminar on “Art of Connection” in Milan where he talked about using art to present data in ways that appeal to everyone. As a university student studying Economics & Data Science, I was amazed by how data can be mapped in creative ways when art and data science are made to be intertwined. During the seminar, Mr. Barabási presented some of his past projects such as viewing world cuisines through the mapping of chemicals that appealed to our gustatory senses as spicy, sweet, etc. A 3D model sculpted by artists using the data map clearly showed how certain tastes are prevalent in certain regions. I certainly enjoyed listening to Mr. Barabási once again, this time on “The Science of Genius”. 😄
It is very interesting because Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, in addition to being geniuses, had something else that has nothing to do with genius. Both were "characters for the show" Einstein because of his hairstyle, the clothes he wore, the famous photo in which he sticks out his tongue, the image of "Mad Scientist" so used in the media has been taken from him. On the other hand, in Stephen Hawking the disease he suffered stood out, making him an image of overcoming, of an almost supernatural intellect because unfortunately his body was withering. These two people have extra genius characteristics, they are unique characters because of those characteristics, they are not only geniuses, they are in some way the archetype of outstanding genius.
That is why James Maxwell is less famous than Nikola Tesla. He is way more influential than Tesla, but is less famous because he has a tragic backstory. Also, Roger Penrose doesn't get as much recognition from the public as Hawking even though he helped Hawking on some of his theories and is quite a highly-regarded scientist in the Physics world.
Wrong because Einstein was known as a genius before the disheveled hair era, but it CAN be argued that Stephen Hawking’s fame was propelled by his disability.
The extraordinary thing about Hawking is how he continued to perform research and put out papers and books despite his condition. He is an incredible example of willpower and perseverance.
rather he had nothing else to do and out of boredom published a bunch. long ago I heard Hawkings say there are 20 physicists alive now better than him - he just gets the press.
Society rejects differences. Being smart is different. Imagine all the geniuses that died in a ditch because they were born to a poor family. Newton would have struggled to prove he was a genius without the freedom and support of being born into nobility. If we made society a place that nurtured people, we would advance so fast.
You have a good point Many times when you see something like a child taking college courses, it’s because their parents are faculty and they have the resources to give them the opportunity to learn at the pace they can There are many equally smart people who don’t get that opportunity
Isaac was born in a manor but his father died very soon. He was raised by a Reverend. At Cambridge he was a "sizar". He worked as a valet until he got a scholarship. The "Sir" came much later.
A huge factor for why I think scientist make their biggest discoveries often at the beginning of their career is that many scientist become parents. Many people become significantly less focused on their career (genius or not genius) after having children. Scientists who do not have children I’d bet see much greater rates for scientific achievement later in life.
Maybe scientists with children would be inspired by watching their children problem solve. I can’t think of anyone with more outside the box thinking than small children.
Not just for scientists. Children in general hold peoples careers back in general. But having children is absolutely necessary to avoid our extinction. It is an investment into the next generation. But after having children moving up the socio economic ladder just becomes that much harder.
Richard Feynman had a child before winning the Nobel prize in Physics in 1965. Einstein had all of his children long before winning the Barnard medal in 1920 and the Nobel prize in 1921.
The most underrated musical genius of our time is, hands down, Kevin MacLeod. Every person who's ever watched an edited video on the internet has heard his work, yet so few seem to know who he is. I think youtube would have never been the platform it is today, if he hadn't done what he did. Take a minute to thank him
@@titanicisshit1647 Lots of points in the post, but rereading it now I don't believe the ascent of youtube would have been impacted without his music. Most of the background music I hear layered over most youtube videos is nothing I'd miss if I never heard it again.
@@titanicisshit1647 I can't spend the time to evaluate his compositions, nor do I have the musical knowledge to competently do so. Is it his business acumen that you find impressive? The volume of his work? The compositions? What is it about him that you agree is underrated?
@@wyrd9591 read about creativity and how innovations work. You first need to have extensive knowledge of a subject before you can begin innovating. Before you can even begin to see opportunities for creative solutions you need complete mastery of a subject. Hence to break the rules you first have to master them.
Hawking inspired the layman like Feynman did also. That is considerable when talking about impact in other ways besides citations. Hawking had an influence over the amount of scientists there are in the world today, in my opinion. He got people interested and made things available to the world in a way that is seldom done. The balance of inspirational genius and genius in ones field. The fact that he was still able to do this through his declining health is also worth mentioning.
Einstein would still be a peerless genius on this scale but it gives more credit to both him and others i feel like this video does not accurately represent.
@@thechainsaw1234 No Sir, you are ignorant. Read the words again. I said Hawking INSPIRED the layman like Feynman INSPIRED the layman. Try again, Bozo.
@@thechainsaw1234 They didn't call Feynman a layman, but said that him and Hawking both inspired the laymen. Reading comprehension is a valuable tool in not looking like a tool.
One reason for early success among scientists is passion. The first thing a young professional might tackle would be the idea(s) he/she is most obsessed with. Curiosity, intuition, creativity, and passion are at their peak when you are young.
Consider the children from India marked as mathematical genius's, but we never hear anything about their adult accomplishments. Also i think the young mind is vastly more active and more curious that the more mature adults' mind. (Not true in all cases of course)
You are wrong, India is a scares place for opportunities and lacks research funding. See what kind of miracles they are doing in the west, from U.K's P.M. to CEO of top US companies.
Being curious actually has nothing to do with age. That is a correlation but not a causality. Couriosity is managed by our psychosomatic system. Openminded people stay curious about everything because the psychosomatic system allowes them to enjoy everything. Not openminded people stop beeing curious because the brain starts to enjoy less and less things. Psychosomatic is literally "the evolution as a teacher" and the evolution hates not beeing openminded so it starts to give a person who is ignorant more and more reasons to change their ignorance by taking their ability to enjoy things (the hormone system that "produces joy" stops working properly). Someone can be openminded and imense curious till he is 90 or someone can be not even any curious when he is 20. Its just so that this world produces people that are ignorant so it seems like old people are "normally less curious". Thats not the case. In a world that does not produces ignorance old people will stay curious.
I think it is just that being great at math is really cool if you are a kid and not as interesting if you are an adult. I also think that a big reason one's biggest discovery is in their 30s is that they are fresh enough in their career to shoot their shot and are fresh from school having had many novel ideas thrown at them. Older people have the problem of not wanting to put anything out there that tarnishes their reputation and are also farther removed from that influx of new ideas coming from school. For this same reason it is often younger doctors, not the more experienced, that accurately diagnose people. Counter intuitive but they found it is true.
I'm way more creative at the age of 38 than I was when I was 20 (when I was only interested in gaming). I spend more time now studying history, writing, and drawing comics than I ever did before.
Everyone forgets about Paul Dirac. Paul was insane-ly smart. So much so that when asked to comment on him Einstein said: "I have trouble with Dirac. This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful."
😂😂😂 By "everyone," you mean the average person. Gauss is even more important than Dirac and the "average" person has ZERO clue who Gauss is. Gauss would make Dirac's mathematical ability look sophomoric compared to his. And Riemann's contributions to mathematics are arguably just as important as Gauss (or close to it). And, sorry, but even Dirac was in awe of Einstein: "Einstein's General Relativity is the greatest ever invention of the human mind." - Paul M. Dirac
@@Priyanand-kj5ch😂😂😂 Yes, and 99.9% of people have no clue what a Lagrangian is either. Gauss is even more important than Dirac and the "average" person has ZERO clue who Gauss is. Gauss would make Dirac's mathematical ability look sophomoric compared to his. And Riemann's contributions to mathematics are arguably just as important as Gauss (or close to it). And, sorry, but even Dirac was in awe of Einstein: "Einstein's General Relativity is the greatest ever invention of the human mind." - Paul M. Dirac
Hawking was a very accomplished scientist, but his reputation was based more upon his extraordinary medical situation and his catchy books titles (like “A Brief History of Time”) rather than any remarkable breakthroughs in physics. He is more a Neil deGrasse Tyson than a Niels Bohr in that his media fame far exceeded his academic accomplishments. Probably his most significant discovery was Hawking radiation, but even that wasn’t close to getting him nominated for the Nobel Prize (which presumably leaves him behind the 216 scientists who have actually won a Nobel Prize for physics). When you compare his achievements to the true greats: Einstein, Newton, Feynman, Heisenberg, et al, he doesn’t really belong in that hallowed company.
Cope and seethe regarding the brilliant intellect of Stephen Hawking; are you upset because you did not receive a noble prize in physics? It is okay to be jealous of other people's accomplishments⸮ Anyway, you can continue to hope to become somebody like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson; also, you do not belong even in the hallowed company of the mentally deficient.
He was probably pushed because of the atheist trend looking for justication in scientific figures. The books he was known for were actually outside the scope of his field of expertise.
Well, Hawking couldn't win the Nobel prize because his theories were never confirmed with observational data. There are many theoretical physicists who never won the Nobel Prize for the same reason even though their work is revolutionary in the field. If they ever do prove Hawking radiation and some of his other theories it would take a lot of advanced tech to do so as opposed to a camera taking a picture during an eclipse. That's not to say that Einsteins' theory was not impressive. Plus another example of why not winning medals shouldn't be a disqualifier for genius is the mathematician John Von Neumann who never won the field medal even though he has produced a large body of influential work. I could go on. To say Hawking was just a media figure like Tyson or Bill Nye is just an insult. I mean Tyson gets stuff about nuclear radiation wrong on top of being annoying. Overall all of this is relatively subjective and kinda pointless. I mean Hawking is a genius and Einstein is a genius, regardless of what type they are. The video didn't really make a great argument for why we need to classify geniuses into peerless vs ordinary. At the end of the day who cares, what's your point.
@@alexschaefer8255 // At the end of the day who cares, what's your point.// This is true for U also. Furthermore, I don't want to convince this idea to others and this is also a copy from Quora. U have no idea about what they have done. If you ask someone who knows some theoretical physics, you will realize there is a clear difference between what Einstein, Heisenberg, and Hawking had done. Generally, people who made paradigm shifts are considered as greatest.(Not just a new idea, whole framework) There are 4 such in physics. 1.Newtonian Mechanics(Newton,Gallilio) 2.Tharmodynamics(Boltzmann, Clausius) 3.Relativity(Einstein[Yes he used previous ideas of Lagrange, Lorentz]) 4. Quantum mechanics( Plank,Schrodinger,Dirac,Heisenberg) Unification of forces & QFT(Shwenger,Abdus,Glashow,Weinberg,David gross[all won nobels]) The above scientists and a few others(not mentioned) made the whole framework(not just a theory). So their class is different. Here I wanted to say he is not comparable with Einstein which most people who know nothing about physics(Especially the media)always do. This is not to insult him.
Lower cost all around for the students and pay the teachers more. The cost of education was virtually free in the 1960s we can do it again. Education in European countries and china are low af, we can do it too.
"THE ONLY factor for why I am completely sure that scientist make their biggest discoveries often at the beginning of their career and only at that time (and already STARTING at the PhD program' time-the scientific base of his or her future geniuses peerless accomplishments !) is that : TOTAL ,NAIVE , IDEALISTIC AND FULL TIME PASSION FOR THE SET OF PROBLEMS THAT HE OR SHE IS TRYING TO SOLVE ,MOSTLY IN THE CASE ALONE AND WITHOUT FULL TECHNICAL HELP AND COLLABORATION ! "
"Thinking outside the box" is such a common meme that it's practically become a cliche, but I believe that's what separated Einstein from his contemporaries. There were probably a thousand physicists who had Einstein's level of technical knowledge, but he was the only one able to expand his mind to see the universe (especially time) in a new way.
A non open minded scientist can descover what he knows that he dont know it. An open minded scientist can discover what he dont know that he dont know it. And by far to discover what we dont know we dont know will always be more impactfull. You can replace someone who researches something that we know we dont know with anyone who is educated enough. But you cant replace someone that is not open minded with someone who is not to find out something we dont even know we dont know. Then it will never be discovered. Unfortunatly most of nodern science is not covered with really open minded people because our education system prefers those who are not or are willing to stop beeing openminded.
That’s a very flawed outlook that other physicists in Einsteins time had the technical knowledge but lacked exponential thinking. There was none or a handful who could even keep up with his thinking, when he was trying to finish his special theory of relativity, almost all physicist gave up, and a mathematician took up the mantle to try and solve it. It’s to the very same level as Ramanujan compared to all the mathematical minds of his time, the only one close to his level was Hardy and even him, he couldn’t compute at his level. It’s the same as having a CPU at 5.0ghz vs a 2.0ghz. They both can take in theories and algorithms but the 5.0 will compute faster and spit out more complex algorithms of put to the task. TL;DR everyone was outclassed by these peerless geniuses not bc they could expand or were more creative, but for the simple reason that they had an amazing ability to compute that they couldn’t even explain. Ramanujan described it as if his god was literally feeding him equations that for as smart as others were, they couldn’t seem them. Ramanujans contemporaries had more classical teachings and all the theory(technical knowledge) to presumably best him, and none could, he just had “it”.
@@pcbacklash_3261 he didn’t need help with the math for his theory. And your point doesn’t stand because he beat the mathematician to solving the special theory and even pointed out a mistaken in the mathematicians initial claim of saying he solved it. It’s a common misconception to think Einstein was bad at math like many claim. His wife Minerva never reported anything like that and she worked with him.
@@Pineapplelesspineapplepizza All I know is what I've read from other physicists who've explained his theories in books. I wish I could remember more, but it was a long time ago. Then again, you've made a handful of claims as well, for which you offer no evidence. So perhaps you should stick to pizza.
I've never heard of Albert-László Barabási in my life. I start taking a Network Science class 3 weeks ago with his book, and he is suddenly everywhere :)
The genius of Stephen hawking is regardless of his condition he kept going and pushed the boundaries. Wrote incredible books that inspired millions of young people around the world to pursue science and think science so in my opinion, Hawking was far away from an ordinary genius
You're mixing completely different things. Influence is not a measure of genius. Genius is a measure of creativity and quality of work in their field. It's simply factual that Hawking's work *in physics* is not of sufficient quality to put him in the "peerless genius" category. Carl Sagan was another great man that had incredible influence in science communication, and was also a real scientist who did research, and was considered extremely intelligent. He was not a peerless genius in science, despite having an influence far exceeding Hawking. Of course, we can name numerous "influencers" in society and by your standard, they would be peerless geniuses because of how much they influence people.
This is a very interesting analysis of “genius” and what it really means. I wonder what the general consensus is on the “ordinary” and “peerless” categories mentioned here. While some may only consider the latter truly genius with the former being merely highly intelligent and productive, I believe that anyone who’s ideas and implementation of them expand the edges or connect different isolated areas of humanity’s knowledge of the objective deserves the label. The general public and the scientific community recognize many individuals throughout history who fit the description, but this video reminds me that, tragically, there have probably been countless others on the cusp of “genius” level contributions who lived and died without ever making them or being acknowledged for doing so. We definitely should seek out the most clever and tenacious minds of our day to develop ways to better nurture genius and give anyone displaying signs of it what they need to flourish. The humans of today and the future need it.
That Q factor is basically the measure of how good at synthesizing and transmitting new ideas people are. I think everyone that is in the right circumstances can come up with them, but sharing them with others and convincing people with all the hardships that comes with communication, clashing interests and personalities is the biggest hurdle and differentiator.
I love the after age of 30 quote. Einstein developed General Relativity after the age of 30, but I guess that rule doesn't apply to him. But it gives us a justification for rampant ageism, and makes Mark Zuckerberg's "young people are just smarter" comment sound less ignorant.
Just 5 papers that Einstein published in his miracle years of 1905 is enough to earn him the title of peerless. However, his life works is so much more. The truly genius among genius...
@@Tom-vu1wr here's the thing: the accomplishments and your intelligence don't alwways correlate, newton had greater accomplishments than feynman (I think even that's debatable but I wouldn't have objections to it) but feynman literally didn't even try, he never used his full potential. instead he hanged out, somewhere got interested in art and fooled around with him, got interested in computers and mostly dedicated himself to education. he was also VERY social, had kids, married 2 times etc. and also had a chapter in his life where he only worked on the atomic bomb (which he again had great accomplishments). newton was asocial, almost had no friends, didn't have a wife and kids, if I'm correct didn't teach much in university, and aside from religion almost never diverted from math and physics. so what I'm saying is feynman just lived his life and didn't actually give shit about anything much, he just wanted to enjoy life thus never reached his full potential. both geniuses but I think feynman is more special, and honestly I think if feynman lived in the same time period with newton he could've discovered almost everything he discovered, he is famous for explaining newton's works so clearly and easily, this shows how strong his grab is on newton's findings and I think it says something
@@salihalbayrak-es8ky I think that the fact that you say Newton's accomplishment seeing more than Feynmans is somewhat debatable is completely ridiculous. Understanding something well is completely incromparable to inventing it and Ur just basing this off the fact u like Feynman. I mean Feynman was very smart but this is a totally baseless argument.
That’s why you have to just focus on achievement without expectation of reward. You just do what you have to do, and ignore the noise of opinion and reputation as best you can
Obvious answer on Hawking: 1) His personal physical tragedy, which nonetheless left him an enormously compelling and charismatic figure 2) His immensely popular book “A Brief History of Time” coupled with his subsequent celebrity Edward Witten is broadly considered an insuperable contemporary genius of physics - indeed, mathematics as well - but he’s only a fraction as famous as Hawking. Or even Tyson!
There is no need to push yourself to become a genius or something to gain recognition unless things are coming naturally to you. Live and enjoy your life and one day everyone will be forgotten. Everyone even Einstein.
@@loveydovey4u This exactly. Both Einstein and Feynman recognized the power of working hard. Especially with Feynman it's always such a classical case, the man was a clear genius without any of his accomplishments. Yet he wanted everyone to know his IQ was 125. Which isn't just some number too boost peoples morale. It actually really means something if you understand the subject well.
I once read* that while special relativity was very much a discovery of its time that another scientist would probably have discovered in the next few years if Einstein had not done so, General relativity is such a monumental achievement that were it not for Einstein, we might not have discovered it to this day one hundred years later. *in Bill Bryson's A Short History of Everything, if my memory serves me well
I also remember this from "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and if my memory serves me right it was C. P. Snow who said this! This sounds pretty cool but I wonder if it is actually true for I have heard that David Hilbert was really close to completing General Relativity and Einstein only outpaced him by a little time.
@SAMAC AG The second formulation written by you is that of kinetic energy while the one given by SRT is that of the total energy stored in a mass. It is this energy that gets released on nuclear fission. Now if you don't trust in E=mc2, then where does nuclear power come from?
@SAMAC AG "Nuclear Power has nothing to do with Mr. Einstein at all." So where does nuclear energy come from? Why is "BBT - unscientific theory" "... the world will laugh about the century of shame." Why? How about giving cogent explanations for your assertions.
One of my good friends doing CS with me at school is a genius in the literal sense. He has an IQ of roughly 140. I'd say what noticeably separates him from the other students is his efficiency. He's able to work for hours and hours at a very fast and precise rate without using nearly as much energy as other students performing the same tasks. He's able to absorb new material very quickly, and put it into practice incredibly efficiently. Pure genetics. It's so amazing watching him rip through problem sets.
I think focus, passion and lack of distraction in your early years are big factors. Everyone I know in the science fields have by 30 years old too much else going on either teaching, leading others or family and other commitments. Your late teens and early 20s is a time of freedom not afforded to those older in general.
We are but a block of Marble, at which life carves away to shape who we become. Education isnt the only form of genius, for what is he who merely absorbs existing knowledge, a parrot. We are not bound by anything, so whos to say we cant do what we like, at whatever period in our lives. You need only break away from the norms to realize that there was never an excuse why you couldnt.
I can't agree with this any more, the impact of family on achievement is profound. For most people family gives them the most meaning in their lives, but the attention required to have one is taken from whatever other pursuits you'd have. I don't think this can ever really change though, just a fact that you can't have optimally achieving and happy humans.
If you are brought up in a less privileged country and environment, the opposite is actually more true. This reeks "only Western countries exist in the world" :)
The genius arises from the collective mind's depths, where archetypes and symbols dance, but only through communion with the collective unconscious can the genius be sung. It's through this resonance that creation comes to shine, the product of a mind in tune with the cosmic design.
Infinite insights await for those who choose to take psychedelics, but it's crucial to tread gently and caress your mind and spirit while using these powerful tools. Expect that you may encounter uncomfortable or challenging experiences, so it's essential to remember to be gentle with yourself and your surroundings. If the experience becomes too intense, surrender to it in a gentle way and remind yourself that this too shall pass. The experience can unravel the veil, leaving you feeling bare and bewildered, bereft of bearings if you don't approach these experiences with respect, humility, and a willingness to face whatever challenges may arise.
there is clearly a link between recognised genius and popular appeal. Renata Kallosh is someone who has never written a popular science book whereas Hawking did. He also made news for his dramatic and to some extent, inspiring, personal life. Perhaps the difference is not just between peerless genius and ordinary genius but also between popularly recognised and unrecognised genius.
To simplify, genius is not about potential, it is about success and accomplishments, and how others perceive them, essentially, their popularity or reputation. Therefore the same formulae and explanations for what it takes to be successful apply.
I was a mechanic when I was 4-5 8:26 and was always taking things apart and putting them back together, figuring the internet out was fun and playing roblox was fun as well. I then went through traumatic events and lost the ability to create new creative ideas it’s always ideas that just branch off something else. I believe if you are created in the right environment and given the right type of brain you can develop this “genius” level but if you’re given the wrong information then your powerful brain will corrupt itself.
Why hawking? Geez I don’t know, maybe because the man was fully paralysed from an irreversible nerve condition yet still achieved “genius” levels. Of course his peers should have been appropriately rewarded for their contributions, but Hawking was amazing.
I think a lot of the obsession with young people, which is completely derailing at the moment at universities comes from the social structures in the world and nothing else really. I teach and research in in a "top 10 world ranked uni" in engineering/bioscience and I am more and more perplexed by the degeneration of the concept of "professor". Here is a recent-ish story highlighting my issue: My uni wrote out a position for a tenure track assistant professorship which was, as often, totally ridiculous. It was the classic "we want an 8-legged unicorn with magical powers" (asking for awards in both teaching and research and very specific other achievements etc etc). I laughed and said you will never find anyone like that. After a long time, out of the ether, a guy emerged with these credentials. He was peerless - but the uni rejected him because at 37 years he was too old. At that moment I almost quit my job. I am supposed to work at a place where the smartest people gather, yet I came to realize my place was run by absolute idiots. To me, a professor should be someone with a lot of experience and WISDOM. This ever-worsening fetish of universities for having all their labs run by babies is an abomination and makes me sick. Don't get me wrong, in no way shape or form do I want to take research opportunities away from young and motivated people, au contrary, the more opportunities the better. But this should be done in a different system, having just more weight put on lead-scientist positions that can have small teams and autonomy. If it was up to me I would make 50 the *minimum* age for a professor. Anyway, sayonara.
amen brother. i couldn't even take a 30 year old prof seriously. at least the majority of them, there's always the odd one out but even they themselves would probably agree that wisdom is an important ingredient to such a teacher
Even if your a young genius, people older than you wont take you seriously because of your age difference, if you dont manage something that wows the public, youll always be patronized. Yet many assume themselves smart and that being labeled a genius is supposed to garner respect from people or hell, that shit will fall into your lap. But it wont. Ive seen the most educated people suffer more than drones, because if you dont kiss ass or challenge society, you are a negative. Why many great minds wernt exactly rich or perfect. Society treated many like trash. Only their deaths saw them receive some acknowledgment. Makes one wonder why people put so much emphasis on the value of intellect.
It’s not like being 30 is some magical constraint in the fabric of reality or something. There have to be social explanations for this, so contributing before 30 isn’t some kind of endgame. You’ll be the same person even after you hit the number.
Relax there will never be another Einstein or Newton anyway. They were products of their time and the state of scientific development in their day, Newton made discoveries in multiple fields. Nowadays you have hundreds of experts working on one very very specific area that has already been trodden over countless times trying to find that one thing that was overlooked. The lower hanging fruits are gone.
Is creativity a function of being young, though, or being new to a field? If you're new, you're not bound by the same ideas of what's doable and what isn't, and you're not bogged down by the same professional responsibilities that someone much further along in their career is. We've seen in the art world, for example, a lot of older women innovating as artists and I think that could be because they're done with other responsibilities in life and are throwing themselves fully in to their art for the first time at a mature age.
I think for your name to be synonymous with "genius" you also have to be a public figure. At the end of the day we're social creatures, and if you can't entertain, tell a good story, or attract attention of the public your efforts will go unrecognized. You see this in careers too, often the ones that progress aren't the most competent, they're just have better people skills. One thing I'm really surprised he did not mention is the prevalence of mentors ! Many highly successful people from the boxer Floyd Mayweather, to Richard Feynman had a mentor very early on. I'd say all the great minds I've looked into had major help early in their development helping launch them into the "genius" stratum. He mentioned an upper limit to the age of genius discovery, but didn't mention the lower limit of age. Potentially its the same in academics, but it's clear as day in sports. The best of the best typically started from a very young age.
Makes me think of something i heard about art. No one in the world can make your art but you. So its your duty to make sure the world sees it. And that makes me think how we can have genius level people not having the tools or confidence to live up to their potential
It would be interesting to see a similar analysis of other creative work, e.g. authors in literature, artists in music, writers/directors/actors in movies, painters in art, etc. I'd wager that you can find the same correlation with a Q-factor and less correlation with productivity.
One thing, most of the greatest minds you will never hear of, as they don't have the opportunity to explore it or get recognized. Think about those in poverty, geniuses that are part of the regular work force...Most "recognized" geniuses were also born into a situation where they can thrive, giving them a leg up. Doesn't make them smarter, just more visible. One thing, the thing with scientists, most are not geniuses anymore. It's more about your ability in academics than actual thought processing capabilities. A buddy of mine I grew up with is a bio-chemist Dr. He has barely above average IQ, but had all the support he needed in school, including cost of university. Another buddy, with an IQ of 155, who has ADD and never had help from school/home, is now a labor worker. We all get together, and you would be amazed how much the scientist learns (and further understands) things from the labor worker, especially with abstract concepts; but the labor worker has little to learn from the scientist, so "success" is not a measure of genius. I think there are greater minds out there that we will never hear of. More so than we know of. Especially in the third world. Goes to show that your start and station in life has much more to do with "success" than intellegence.
A true genius is one who can walk into a conference of his peers and say " I have something completely new" or a breakthrough that will transform their field.
@@AB-et6nj To preemptively finding geniuses in the haystacks is trivial? I think there's a great merit in trying *_not_* to let world's undiscovered potentials go to waste.
@@atrociousprogrammingthen obviously you’ve never heard of Leonardo da Vinci or Galileo. Newton took Galileo’s ideas after he died then reformed them into principles and laws.
Scientists publish the most papers early in their careers because they are competing for tenure with their peers, which is often decided in the first five years of a professorship. If a PhD has completed their second postdoc and is applying for professorships, they are likely already past 30. Funding drives this machine at least as much as any personal or age-based predictor of “productivity”
I love the show "Big Bang Theory" which thematizes "geniuses". But I think their depiction of "genius" and "smart" was off by a lot. They set up that idea that a genius is someone who knows a lot of trivia and facts about their field and basics, also they were depicted as smart because they know a lot of stuff. As Einstein said, it is not the things you know that makes you a genius, it is your ability to think. He often didnt know basic numeric values of scientific phenomena and processes, because he could simply look up those numbers, when he needed them. It is exactly that what being smart means. Everyone can know about something, but to understand it, you need intelligence.
When einstein discovered special relativity he removed the luminous aether from the theory of time dilation/length contraction just like galileo removed the concentric circles from the revolution equations.
UFC fighter Dominick Cruz also said that what determines the true greats of the sport, isn't just skill-set or amount of wins, but also popularity. I never really understood this, but over time it's kind of made more sense, where you start to see that without the right amount of circumstances that build someone into something 'more', that even those with great records can be brushed aside in history. An extreme and maybe controversial example would be how Bruce Lee is deemed one of the great fighters by some, yet he has barely proven it in competition. Often times, popularity trumps all.
Right, nothing to do with literally all wiki pages, textbooks, documentaries etc. Same with Da Vinci - you can't be able to write and read without being told he was a genius.
Your comment makes a claim that is simply not correct. No one intuitively knows that Einstein is a genius, almost everybody who describes him as one does it simply because that's how the media always depicts Einstein. I think that the researcher in the video should put more emphasis on the role of media in this matter of "genius" discussion.
He didn't even get his nobel prize for his theory of relativity, he got it for his work on quantum mechanics. Kind of shows how what the public percieves of scientists can really differ from what other scientists percieve.
Hawking is mythologised in popular culture as a genius. Physicists haven't thought so both adter and during his career. They wouldn't put him on the top 20 list of physicists. He also speaks English, so the Anglosphere praise him highly
But Hawking is the one who discovered cause behind big bang and made big bang universally acceptable he also discoverd a way to unify physics which Einstein failed to do
Yitang Zhang at the age of 58 made an original contribution to number theory and prime numbers that won him the Ostrowski Prize, a 2014 Cole Prize, a 2014 Rolf Schock Prize, and a 2014 MacArthur Fellowship. And even Einstein at age 56 in 1935 co-authored two important papers, one on wormholes and the other on quantum entanglement, that physicists are still referencing and inspired by today. It is never too late so long as you are curious and asking the right questions.
For every genius, there are one million idiots who think they are geniuses and push forward their stupid ideas. Consequently, societies are skeptical about those who push out of the box thinking. Real geniuses have to fight and rise above those one million idiots to have their ideas disseminated, accepted, and adopted.
There is a lot of subjectivity in how we define "real genius". Do we even have a working definition? Depends on who you ask, right? Everyone is an idiot at something and a genius at something else. I mean, not necessarily to those extremes, but the point stands.
For as much as I love professor Hawking , Einstein is truly one of a kind. His importance to physics and strength of ideals are demonstrated by his theories of relativity , revolutionizing every branch of physics with his discoveries.
@@yashJoshi-hn6bf LMFAO the fuck you saying , bro? We can't even unify gravity and SMPP , imagine "unifying physics". What Hawking did was use quantum mechanical principles in cosmology and astrophysics , something done before , just not in the way he did. Einstein , on the other hand , created a whole new branch of physics and revolutionized knowledge on gravitation , leading to absurd insights on secular problem , like the n-bodies problem , and solving others , like the Mercury perihelion precession problem.
@@NaeNzuko Ok then here we go, Hawking discovered the cause behind big bang & also mathematically proved the theory which made big bang theory universally accepted, This discovery also changed cosmology from being a peripheral field to become one of pillars of modern physics,he also discovered laws of blackholes, Black hole information paradox, hawking-hurtle state And Hawking radiation (which totally changed the entire idea of black holes, general relativity of celestial bodies & Became first successful attempt to unify Gravity & a quantum mechanics), He started new research Areas of Physics like Big bang singularity, Black hole mechanics, Black hole thermodynamics, Black hole information paradox & restarted quantum gravity.
@@yashJoshi-hn6bf yes , it was before Hawking just because it wasn't even a concern before Einstein , since QFT was still being formulated. And , yes , before his works were validated people were already approaching quantum gravity. Also , guess what. Hawking had 90% works on applying general relativity. His work can't be more revolutionary than Einstein's , since his was mostly argumentation through general relativity , he studied the implications of it. By the way , I'm not discrediting professor Hawking by any means , it's just that Einstein is unmatched , no one is even remotely close to him. He was a true genius.
In my book, anyone who is exceptional in one field but still objectively "genius" is an ordinary genius - no matter how influential, it was in an isolated environment - while someone who is a polymath and a genius is a peerless "genius." Einstein, Hawking, etc, were ordinary geniuses; Pythagoras, Julian, Maimonides, Al-Ma'mun, etc, were peerless geniuses.
Back in the day fields were a lot less specialized for example in "Physics" you learned atomic theory of atoms, natural selection and classification of animals, "scientific method“， etc... It was a lot easier to be a polymath back in the day.
@@AlexRodriguez-gb9ez The volume of information accumulated in all fields would suggest that you'd have to be specialized in order to actually make meaningful contributions.
intelligence + timing + relationship to dominate culture + publicity = Genius The last two seem to be what makes or beaks that identification of genius label and can explain why so many females and minorities go unrecognized. No one is looking at them.
I'm sorry, but saying Einstein was "truly alone" is just outrageous. In my opinion, if only he'd never met his first wife, Mileva Marić, I'm sure no one would know his name right now. She contributed in his work tremendously, she might have even discovered more, than Einstein himself. Moreover, Einstein at some point was broke af, and if Mileva wouldn't support him financially, he would not be able to continue his academic career, and now, most probably, we would be hearing about magnificent genius of Mileva Marić. Who knows, maybe she would have had won even more Nobel prices, than Marie Skłodowska-Currie. In fact, I strongly suspect that Einstein may have been a sociopath. Because, without a doubt in my mind, he was a grandiose narcissist. And I do agree, he was a genius. Genius of manipulation, deception, gaslighting and exploiting others. He surely was intelligent above average, but he also was, above average, cunning, unethical, deceitful and self-centered. 💙Mileva Marić💜MVP💚
As a (clinically diagnosed) gifted autistic 26-year-old researcher who has encountered a lot of challenges trying to publish my master's research thesis and a paper related to my research because of lack of funding and mental breakdowns, I find this very anxiogenic, though at the same time quite useful to know.
@@PetekDemircioglu-zj9os Planck and Einstein were completely different animals. They had institutional money and theoretical advantages and advancement as their focus were as Tesla was the engineer and finding how to apply his knowledge in real world applications. Curvature of space-time is great but how does it keep the lights on…better yet does it make light?
@@PetekDemircioglu-zj9os scientific advancement for the sake of scientific advancement only serves academic elitism. Necessity is the mother of invention. Invention doesn’t happen without discovery therefore it all has a symbiotic relationship or that newly discovered information is just trivia. Tesla’s biggest failure wasn’t that he was a bad salesman-its was that he couldn’t find the relationship between his discoveries and how to monetize it for further advancement. It only one thing-an electric meter. Had he made a watt meter that measured how much was used every month to charge the user a monthly fee Morgan would have financed him for life.
@@Ojas97 going to mars doesn’t serve science or a rich guy’s ego any more than someone climbing Everest. Yes, your team became ridiculously efficient with your tech and resources but what new science was discovered, what does this prove and how does it serve man’s advancement? Bezos, Brandson and Musk have only reaffirmed private industry is more efficient than government in these endeavors. Rocket engineering still has made little advancement in the last 60 years.
I teach and do research on these types of questions as well. But in my experience many are a little too uncritical about the meaning of the words that are being bandied around, such as "productivity", or the meaning of mathematical objects such as a 'Q-factor' or an 'h-index'. With the productivity of a scientist / academic most researchers focus narrowly on 'papers'. Quite often they are not even recognizing that even within modern-day disciplines academic 'papers' are a unit of productivity that is much more meaningful in some disciplines (Maths, Physics, Chemistry,...) than in others (Literature, Philosophy, Arts, ...). But perhaps even more serious, the sole focus on 'papers' not only completely obscures the effort and time spent on 'teaching', but it even feeds into the view that allocating time between teaching and writing papers is a trade-off that 'good scientists' make by writing more and teaching less. Similarly, the notion of 'impact' is entirely skewed towards impact as measured by citations, not impact through (harder to measure, I agree) teaching. Citation counts also are highly ambiguous. Most decent citation counts would exclude obvious pollutants such as self-citations, but hardly any measures of citation counts would consider removing (or attributing a different weight to) repeat-citations. A researcher could attract a thousand citations based on a publications career-portfolio of 150 papers, and still have only impacted a few dozen researchers. A different researcher could have published significantly fewer papers, say 15, have attracted only a handful of citations, but could have taught literally thousands of students, perhaps a low few hundred of whom have become researchers. Who is to say that researcher didn't have as much, or perhaps even more, impact, just because we don't measure their main contribution? Finally, it is interesting how in the 'valuation' of the notions of productivity and impact, we see 'citations' as value produced by the authors(s) of the paper being cited, whereas the effort to write those papers that do the citing is provided by the authors of the citing papers. In fact, it is clear from citation network-studies that 'preferential attachment' plays a role here: authors prefer citing papers that have already been cited before. In a sense, the 'citation path' of a paper is very much *also* the product of the effort of others than the author. In many cases the actual impact of a paper isn't generated by that paper, but by the work others do with that paper as one of the inputs into their work. Network analysis is a great 20th century tool to get a better understanding how research disciplines work and how the interactions between scholars change over time. But if we constrain it by interpreting it in terms of mid-19th century economic thought when it comes to things such as productivity, theory of value, and impact, then I am afraid we are not making the best use of it.
Sometimes kids who are told that they're intelligent at a young age end up becoming depressed when they grow up. This happens when they assume that they're always going to be smart and hence put the same level of effort into learning as they did when they were younger. But it ends up being inadequate and they start feeling depressed. intelligence is not permanent, nor is it innate. I think to become truly intelligent, you would have to keep learning and keep working hard. Thomas Alva Edison once said, "Genius is only 1% inspiration and and 99% perspiration."
@@chiquita683 Yeah, plenty more stupidity to begin war, all wars started by lunatics and stupid mentalities and only the innocent pay the price! Peace to all from Eastern Arabia and loci Oasis.
My favourite genius might just be Eske Willerslev. He's a 53 year old geneticist that just recently found a new way of bringing using applying the DNA of extinct plant species in agriculture. He just recently received a grant of approximately $80 million dollars from Novo Nordisk to dig more into his discovery and it's applications. Reading his books helped inspire my love for human evolution and biology. It was just announced three days ago that he is being honoured with the Albert Einstein World Award of Science 2024!
I disagree, Einstein had help from a lot of people. If he made the discovery being in a room all his life that never interacted with the outside world. I'd agree, he's a peerless genius.
then no real geniuses exist? you know Sapiens haven't always been as advanced as today but were always just "as smart" discoveries and advancement always depend on those who came before you, doesn't make you any less of a genius
Only geniuses that support the round earth scam are supported. Theres trillions of dollars funneled through these money laundering organizations like NASA
Education is very important but the way the school system is set up now it sucks all creativity out of you, because we are stuck having to get good grades which means we have to study a lot of useless things in school that you will never use in your life. Instead of studying things freely by what interests us. We are all taught to think the same and do the same by our school system so it really hurts how many geniuses there are. I remember myself in 3d grade, math was fun outside of the classroom, inside the classroom it was a chore, why should i sit and memorize the multiplication table 1-10 how is that useful? When i could instead just calculate the answer easily. One number per week, 10 weeks for 10 numbers, i can understand that some people want to memorize things. But for me it sucked all the fun out of math even outside of the classroom because it turned math into something incredibly dull but i was still good at it so i never struggled in school with math. It was first after university that i rediscovered my interest in math on youtube of all things, i am not saying i would have become a genius mathematician, it is simply just an example of what the current school system is doing to young kids. By the end of my path through education i never wanted to have anything to do with it anymore. Thanks to youtube primarily i am now studying a lot of different things just out of sheer interest again.
The school system is an introduction to unlocking talents and abilities. See Videos 9 types of Intelligence Homemade Inventions Homemade Go Carts 4 Types of Learning 6 Types of Dyslexia Folding Furniture
Honestly why lowball yourself? Ofc you wouldn't be multiplying 8 digit numbers in your head, but you could still make very significant contributions to mathematics.
Yea but isn't it getting harder to be a peerless genius? With the more things discovered its kinda hard to come up with "new" stuff. Or is it becoming easier because education is getting more accessible?
@@ultimaxkom8728 Wrong. A dream sparks the will and determination of a person. A fire that ceases to go out. Confusing a wish with a dream is different. A dream is something you're willing to give your entire being for. To work your hardest to accomplish. Even when your chances of success are less than one percent. Isaac Newton had his own dream. He wanted to learn more about the natural world. And to quote him, "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." He spent the majority of his day studying and researching. And he reached the pinnacle of humanity of his time.
Einstein's a peerless genius, Hawking's an ordinary genius, and I'm a subpar genius. I'm just glad to be in the genius category with these two outstanding gentlemen.
Yeah but its not like the ideas weren't floating around before their great work. They just dared to step outside conventions and eventually publish a work. I would love to really analyse how their thought processes compared with their colleagues and every other researcher and simple worker. There is a couple of things they had to do. They had to read and write and work prodigiously. They had to do in a season what others do in a longer period. They had to make their own decisions instead of waiting for permission in order to make the next leap. They are perhaps what everyone should be but aren't. They possibly venture so far ahead that its hard for others to relate to the complexity of their travels. They are the pioneers in the fields they create; they are the template that others work with after them. It could also be they lacked real competition to push back on their ideas, and maybe they did have competition and eventually are validated after their death through experiment. They definitely have to break out of the flow and do their own work. Maybe that is the difference. They succeeded in being productive and independent. And prodigious enough that sparks fly. And an inspiration occurs, they follow it, expand and write a paper on it. Although they maybe had godlike efficiency, I prefer to focus on the tangible. What they did, than how they wowed the world.
What do you think of this perspective on genius?
What about geniuses who are not in academia? That doesn't publish research papers?
I don't think the concept of "genius" is a scientific one. The reality is that, in science as well as in all intellectual fields, there is a continuum of skills, with no magical point that labels one as a genius. So Einstein is not famous because of his skills, but because of his startling discoveries. He's peerless because few discoveries can be as amazing as relativity theory. However, from the technical standpoint, there have been countless discoveries that required more skills, only they are not as "sexy" as relativity theory. Think about the impact of discoveries. For example, isn't the transistor an invention that has impacted the world much more than relativity? Without any doubt, but it's not as cool as relativity in the mind of people, so the inventors are not labeled Einstein level.
This was really ... bad.
For a while people were calling Elon Musk a genius from his achievements alone, instead of looking at his intelligence.
I find this view of genius lazy. Genius is someone who is highly intelligent. If you're not experienced enough to know what intelligence is you can't measure it, so you might as well fall back to achievements as a pseudo intelligence measurement. But achievements aren't intelligence. Achievements are closer to privilege than intelligence, being in the right time at the right place with the right inspiration and tenacity to achieve.
(I am a scientist with achievements btw.)
@@MikaelJSandersson Real geniuses get persecuted and oppressed by academics and then their ideas are stolen usually involving bad-faith collaboration attempts and breached NDAs. They reward glorified lab techs that are more akin to multitasking home cooks and housewives than real scientists that innovate. They produce large amounts of data on the worthless crap that they research which they then use to create the appearance of productivity "papers and grants etc. It's bad enough that they waste so much money, but they actively fight against real innovation at the same time. We are basically paying most cancer researchers to fight against cures. We should burn it all down and allow the real geniuses to flourish. "Bring out the guillotines!"
It’s interesting that society admires genius yet does everything it can to suppress the out of the box thinking that leads to genius
Everyone is scared that others will outshine them
Because genius often looks like crazy and crazy can often look like genius. One of the things that makes something genius is other people's inability to see the genius in the first place. People will only start recognizing your thinking as genius when your "crazy" ideas are actually proven to be genius. And you'll likely have to undergo a lot of criticism and you will need fortitude. And it doesn't hurt to be born rich.
Because 99% don't have the IQ to have productive "out of the box" ideas.
The ones who are legit will break thru.
Not everything it can. As this video clearly shows, not in science (anymore). But there too much cancel culture elsewhere.
I've found that handing over an idea to a person is assuming the risk that they may misuse or misinterpret it. Social and financial obstacles have certainly suppressed many great minds; the world is not ready, and might not deserve, to advance. 😢
It’s crazy to think there’s probably an Einstein-level genius somewhere in the world RIGHT NOW but they’re working on a farm and have no way to express their immense gifts
Ive met one. Literly, works at a farm. I was 13 at the time, he was 16. I can guarantee you his IQ was genius level, he did everything super fast super easy. To add more context, I was in therapy with him and another guy. We sucked socially basically, but it was obvious we were all not normal intelligence. He stood out the most. Completely different level. I wish I could find out where he is now.
160 IQ really isn't that rare. Not even 180 is that exceptional that you never come across it. Go play some video games or chess and the really strong players are all around there.
What is more special is someone who supposedly was at only 125 IQ but simultaneously might be the clearest example of what a genius really means.
But to be fair to Einstein and Feynman respectively, neither of these numbers actually make much sense if you know a lot about the subject.
@@SevenTheMisgiven wym by someone who is 125 iq but better, explain
@@michaelibrahim1443 Feynmans self reported IQ was 125. And it's not exactly wrong either, you can easily meet someone with similar personality as Feynman with an IQ of 125.
At any rate we have no real reason to not take this seriously and the message is that one can be a peerless genius without needing to be exactly in the Terrence Tao region of IQs.
Of course, IQ means very little and if you want to believe Feynman had a higher IQ than that, most people will agree with you.
@@ice_buckets It takes more than just intelligence.
From a young age I was always fascinated by geniuses like Einstein, Isaac Newton, Ramanujan and always wondered what can I do to achieve their levels of success. As I grew older I read more about their lives and realized that the level of intelligence they had was not the only factor in their success. They pretty much sacrificed other parts of their lives to keep doing their work. No matter how much innate intelligence you have, without hard work and commitment you cannot invent or discover something new. A lot of people who are told they are smarter than everyone else at a young age tend to be lazier because they assume most things will be easy to learn for them. This can lead them to have a shallow understanding on certain topics and might cause them to do bad in exams or miss a working opportunity later in life.
I do agree with a lot of what you say here and I am glad you wrote it in a sense of not being completely deterministic of your groupings of people. Saying "a lot of people" instead of saying "all of them" is a fantastic way to convey the highest likelihood and leaving that possible 1% our of a 100%, you are being a true scientist acknowledging the fact that almost nothing is 100%. With all that said, when I was young and given an intelligence test at 11, my test taker refused to tell me what I scored. He only told me my percentage which is in the 99th percentile, of which I asked him why dont I get straight A's in school if I'm supposedly so smart. His answer was no doubt the best he could come up with by telling me I most likely dont apply my self enough to get all straight A's. In retrospect for me personally, I feel it would have benefited me if I was told my actual score. I learned the score finally a year ago when I was 41 and had another test given in which I well once again wasn't given the score since this time I went above what the test scores, so they could only estimate what I actually scored. I feel though if I was told what I received on the test, I would have tried harder in school and then life in order to live up to my possibilities. I grew up believing I was mediocre at best and also believing IQ tests were bullshit since I still never actually got all A's ever. Another thing about this video that interests me is, this guy based the term "genius" on ones accomplishments and not what they scored on an intelligence test. That is very interesting to me, and he leaves it open to someone who scores a 90 IQ to be capable of being considered "genius" simply based on some accomplishment. I actually like that possibility this video implies, as it puts less pressure on those who score in the supposed genius level of the IQ. Being called a genius solely based on some test puts immense pressure to perform that I feel is to a debilitating amount. Anyways, hope my ramblings are coherent and thought provoking and hope you have a great day too lol
keep coping thinking if you sacrificed like them you'd be a genius too. genius is genetic
if you are responding to my comment then I believe my point was missed. I was acknowledging that the video itself didn't really give a clear view of what they considered "genius" other than some achievement they accomplished. What do you consider a genius?@@cagneybillingsley2165
@@cagneybillingsley2165That isn’t what he’s saying at all.
@@cagneybillingsley2165sometimes it is, sometimes not. You can gain knowledge and improve your intelligence over time but the older you get the harder it gets to improve yourself
The last lines of this talk really struck me. Because virtually everyone who creates genius level stuff needed a teacher or mentor who was devoted to helping them, so that in their early years especially they could pursue those original ideas and were encouraged to do so. I wonder if we should look at genius as a complex combination of native talent, access to an environment that allows that talent to do something, and personal/social support that helps it.
The irony is that the system of publishing quantity over quality and the denigration of teaching in favor of pointless faculty committees that dominates so many modern universities is probably discouraging genius and even good scholarship in those universities.
Could not agree more with your ironic section especially.
It is specifically designed that way.
Perhaps unintentionally you described the Renaissance almost exactly. Henceforth, we had so many more "geniuses" during that era of human history due to societal push and support.
I wholly agree on everything you're mentioning, but I contend that talent is merely a repeatable skillset and not an exclusive feature of the human condition in itself*; as you have expressed the mentor and the environment are instrumental in fostering genius, else the genius flounders and dies on the vine. Sadly, this happens more often than not since -as a species- we tend to squash out-of-the-box thinking, unless of course, it prevails in some manner which initiates retrograde enthusiasm in the form of accolades in its many forms.
*I don't mean to say anyone can be a genius since there can be (and often are) genetic variables to consider, but what most refer to as talent I consider as 'potential'. The idea that talent is purely inherent to some people and not others is another way of squashing potential since current usage of 'talent' carries a sense it will blossom despite any obstacles. Ultimately, I believe more genius is lost to environment than to the rarity of geniuses as a whole.
Good stuff
Srinivasa Ramanujan was a true, peerless genius. He was not born in a society or culture where there was any kind of exposure to such a scientific community and yet, his contribution to the scientific world is huge.
like?
Yeah he was the most remarkable along with Gauss
He was an odd ball. No formal education, just picked up a maths book in early teenage and from there begins his unbelievable story. He was one of a kind. Even hardy was blown away when he realised that letter was written by a young man with no academic background.
@@dastran2731ask a mathematician about it and then compare this with any other mathematician who has achieved this much before 30years of age.
Exactly
I am nowhere close to a genius myself, but have been surrounded by many I would consider to be "geniuses" in my life. I used to be in the astrophysics field, and met people who worked on things like LIGO and space robotics that just seemed to think on a completely different plane of existence. Even back in my undergrad level, there was a peer of mine that just seemed to naturally understanding every concept thrown at him that I would spend 20 hours studying just to have a toddler's grasp of the subject.
I would say that mathematics is the field in which the gap between the best and the ordinary smart guy is the greatest.
@@FrisbieinsteinI think around half the time that could be correct.
@@Frisbieinstein Einstein wasn't a genius at mathematics.
But Newton probably was lol, since he invented mathematics.
@@Frisbieinstein I disagree, the gap maybe large, but fields like physics, chemistry or even economic etc. are why more likely to have near genius in there midst, because concepts in reality can exceed the complexities of purely theoretical studies like maths.
My father used to say anyone can work with language if given the alphabet, but to create with no knowledge of an alphabet is pretty impressive.
I think we are missing opportunities to solve problems by failing to join academics in differing fields of study, and by not ignoring artificial boundaries our societies erect to divide researchers up( selfish competition ).
Very well said
So this this this
It is very annoying and unintelligent
Why is the world of academia so illogical and fusty?
@@wkt2506 Because there are humans behind it
@@WanderTheNomad not all humans are like this. Business has its problems but is always cross pollinating.
I think "humans" are normally taught "different" subjects in school from a young age and by the time they're into an adult academic career they're so used to that they don't mind and rarely question.
(Also creative and dyslexic thinking people who might make more 'bridging' connections in their brains aren't very well accommodated in universities because the 'bridging' connections they make in their brains are too unconventional and too often wrong.
I think you 'pay' for the good new ideas with several bad new ideas, but most of academia doesn't like any of that kind of drawing outside the lines, they want to keep things tidy.)
Remember everyone, genius is not exclusive to science. Genius in Latin is “guiding spirit present at birth” so it has nothing to do with any particular area of study. He’s right: genius is a story. You don’t need to be exceptional at math or science to be a genius. Go be great at what you love and create your story to last lifetimes
correct. we only tend to recognize Math/Physics geniuses, but there have been many other geniuses that people like to ignore.
Art genius
Military Genius
Engineering genius (most overlooked)
Economic Genius
Business Genius
etc...
Business geniuses are ignored ? Maybe I'm pretty fond of reading about business ideas, but with the huge growth of entrepreneurial dreams amongst people isn't that actually becoming common
Something that’s always been interesting to me is that while mathematicians and scientists frequently make their most important discoveries early in life (20-30), composers and writers tend to produce their best works later in life (35-60.) For example, Beethoven’s 9th symphony and Bach’s Mass in B Minor were written shortly before each composer’s death. Even though Mozart was a child prodigy and died at the age of 35, two of his best known works (Symphony 40 and Requiem) were written in his last few years.
great observation, made me think too. Same was the case with van gogh ,tagore.
Thank goodness, that means I can procrastinate till my late 30s at least!
That's true for the writers of symphonies but pop musicians typically have only a few years of hit songs. Indeed if you have more than one you are doing very well.
@@Frisbieinstein Songwriters and producers can easily be over 50 while making huge hits for teenagers.
@@eyvindjr It can happen but there aren 't very many Nile Rogerses or Eric Claptons. How long has it been since Stevie Wonder had a hit song? All of Paul McCartney, Boz Scaggs, Donald Fagen, Brian Wilson, Stevie Winwood, and the three Fleetwood Mac stars each had maybe five golden years. This seems typical to me, and I believe I could make a much longer list.
I talked with Dr. Peter Saulson just yesterday, one of the lead researchers for the LIGO project. He said he was surprised early on in his career that test scores seem to have nothing to do with whether or not someone was a good researcher, rather, resilience and emotional intelligence were the real determining factor of success, and these were not taught or tested.
do autistic individuals develop high emotional intelligence? Einstein was thought to be autistic and i thought he had poor EQ
@@rollyjolly3076 "Einstein was thought to be autistic" ... this doesn't mean that he was
@@rollyjolly3076 I'd say there are two types of "EQ" how you process personal feelings vs how you process external feelings of others. Einstein definitely failed at the latter but the former would be more beneficial for researching
@@AB-et6nj i think this is more than confirmed. his brain shows that they are enlarged and a little dissimilar to neurotypical brains.
@@rollyjolly3076 You need to look into all the things that go into a diagnosis of being autistic. Being intelligent does not necessarily mean you're autistic
Too many genius are undiscovered in our society. We'd rather have good workers, not good thinkers.
They’re easier to work with. It’s the same reason why most genius ideas become unrecognized; because they are less refined and harder to understand than practical concepts.
Nobody said thinkers arnt workers. Without ideas what would workers do? Oh yeah, work pointless jobs or produce crap that pollutes our environment. Sounds like stagnation to me. Look at Africa if you want an example.
Not true. No such thing as a born genius.
David no, i think it's because of capitalism. Capitalism is what crushes the chances for genius to be unleashed.
@@thabokgwele5268 It's the reverse without capital and a high standard of life rarely somebody can sit down and think about hard questions
Living in Brazil for the last 24 years ever since I was born I noticed how many brilliant and creative people are out there, the sad thing is, most people here (and in other countries as well) don't get the opportunity to get a proper education and go to a good university or work and research a subject they enjoy fully, most of the time people don't get the time to work on their ideas and dream projects because they're too busy on the run to survive, looking for ways to earn money to drink, eat and pay their bills. It is our duty to work towards a world where everyone has the opportunity to develop their intellect and creativity, even if it's one small step at a time, but on long terms it could bring so many fruits to science and humanity as a whole.
A few months ago I had a chance to attend Mr. Barabási’s seminar on “Art of Connection” in Milan where he talked about using art to present data in ways that appeal to everyone. As a university student studying Economics & Data Science, I was amazed by how data can be mapped in creative ways when art and data science are made to be intertwined. During the seminar, Mr. Barabási presented some of his past projects such as viewing world cuisines through the mapping of chemicals that appealed to our gustatory senses as spicy, sweet, etc. A 3D model sculpted by artists using the data map clearly showed how certain tastes are prevalent in certain regions. I certainly enjoyed listening to Mr. Barabási once again, this time on “The Science of Genius”. 😄
It is very interesting because Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, in addition to being geniuses, had something else that has nothing to do with genius.
Both were "characters for the show"
Einstein because of his hairstyle, the clothes he wore, the famous photo in which he sticks out his tongue, the image of "Mad Scientist" so used in the media has been taken from him.
On the other hand, in Stephen Hawking the disease he suffered stood out, making him an image of overcoming, of an almost supernatural intellect because unfortunately his body was withering.
These two people have extra genius characteristics, they are unique characters because of those characteristics, they are not only geniuses, they are in some way the archetype of outstanding genius.
Yes! I totally agree with this 🧠✨
Just like he said they were at the right time at the right place!
@@LEONLOVESMUSIC no estoy de acuerdo, había muchos otros científicos que se destacaban en sus descubrimientos. es mi humilde opinión
That is why James Maxwell is less famous than Nikola Tesla. He is way more influential than Tesla, but is less famous because he has a tragic backstory. Also, Roger Penrose doesn't get as much recognition from the public as Hawking even though he helped Hawking on some of his theories and is quite a highly-regarded scientist in the Physics world.
Wrong because Einstein was known as a genius before the disheveled hair era, but it CAN be argued that Stephen Hawking’s fame was propelled by his disability.
The extraordinary thing about Hawking is how he continued to perform research and put out papers and books despite his condition. He is an incredible example of willpower and perseverance.
nah he's a pedo.
rather he had nothing else to do and out of boredom published a bunch.
long ago I heard Hawkings say there are 20 physicists alive now better than him - he just gets the press.
@ZiptiesAndButterflies Wow, that's harsh.
Society rejects differences. Being smart is different. Imagine all the geniuses that died in a ditch because they were born to a poor family. Newton would have struggled to prove he was a genius without the freedom and support of being born into nobility. If we made society a place that nurtured people, we would advance so fast.
"when i groun up I am gonna murder them and burn their house to the ground" Isaac Newton
You have a good point
Many times when you see something like a child taking college courses, it’s because their parents are faculty and they have the resources to give them the opportunity to learn at the pace they can
There are many equally smart people who don’t get that opportunity
Isaac was born in a manor but his father died very soon. He was raised by a Reverend. At Cambridge he was a "sizar". He worked as a valet until he got a scholarship. The "Sir" came much later.
Newton was poor was raised by his grandmother. He died resentful
I don't know where you got nobility from.
A huge factor for why I think scientist make their biggest discoveries often at the beginning of their career is that many scientist become parents. Many people become significantly less focused on their career (genius or not genius) after having children. Scientists who do not have children I’d bet see much greater rates for scientific achievement later in life.
Maybe scientists with children would be inspired by watching their children problem solve. I can’t think of anyone with more outside the box thinking than small children.
Not just for scientists. Children in general hold peoples careers back in general. But having children is absolutely necessary to avoid our extinction.
It is an investment into the next generation. But after having children moving up the socio economic ladder just becomes that much harder.
Agreed
You do not need wisdom to be a scientist, you just need raw intelligence and creative drive. Those are always highest in youth.
Richard Feynman had a child before winning the Nobel prize in Physics in 1965. Einstein had all of his children long before winning the Barnard medal in 1920 and the Nobel prize in 1921.
The most underrated musical genius of our time is, hands down, Kevin MacLeod. Every person who's ever watched an edited video on the internet has heard his work, yet so few seem to know who he is. I think youtube would have never been the platform it is today, if he hadn't done what he did. Take a minute to thank him
Never heard of him.
@@iosis99 but you heard his music , that's the point , genius
@@titanicisshit1647 Lots of points in the post, but rereading it now I don't believe the ascent of youtube would have been impacted without his music. Most of the background music I hear layered over most youtube videos is nothing I'd miss if I never heard it again.
@@titanicisshit1647 I can't spend the time to evaluate his compositions, nor do I have the musical knowledge to competently do so. Is it his business acumen that you find impressive? The volume of his work? The compositions? What is it about him that you agree is underrated?
HAH
yeah probably
Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein
"potato"
- Albert Einstein
No it's not
@@ginjarh9070 Whatever you say 😂
@@ginjarh9070 without imagination there would be no new inventions
@@wyrd9591 read about creativity and how innovations work. You first need to have extensive knowledge of a subject before you can begin innovating. Before you can even begin to see opportunities for creative solutions you need complete mastery of a subject. Hence to break the rules you first have to master them.
Hawking inspired the layman like Feynman did also. That is considerable when talking about impact in other ways besides citations. Hawking had an influence over the amount of scientists there are in the world today, in my opinion. He got people interested and made things available to the world in a way that is seldom done. The balance of inspirational genius and genius in ones field. The fact that he was still able to do this through his declining health is also worth mentioning.
Einstein would still be a peerless genius on this scale but it gives more credit to both him and others i feel like this video does not accurately represent.
calling Feynman a layman is incredibly ignorant
@@thechainsaw1234 No Sir, you are ignorant. Read the words again. I said Hawking INSPIRED the layman like Feynman INSPIRED the layman. Try again, Bozo.
@@thechainsaw1234 They didn't call Feynman a layman, but said that him and Hawking both inspired the laymen. Reading comprehension is a valuable tool in not looking like a tool.
ahahha, you're right. Good line by the way.@@monkeydude9192
One reason for early success among scientists is passion. The first thing a young professional might tackle would be the idea(s) he/she is most obsessed with. Curiosity, intuition, creativity, and passion are at their peak when you are young.
Consider the children from India marked as mathematical genius's, but we never hear anything about their adult accomplishments. Also i think the young mind is vastly more active and more curious that the more mature adults' mind. (Not true in all cases of course)
You are wrong, India is a scares place for opportunities and lacks research funding. See what kind of miracles they are doing in the west, from U.K's P.M. to CEO of top US companies.
The grown up indians will fall in the survival mode. Busy with marriage,kids and a job.
Being curious actually has nothing to do with age. That is a correlation but not a causality.
Couriosity is managed by our psychosomatic system. Openminded people stay curious about everything because the psychosomatic system allowes them to enjoy everything. Not openminded people stop beeing curious because the brain starts to enjoy less and less things.
Psychosomatic is literally "the evolution as a teacher" and the evolution hates not beeing openminded so it starts to give a person who is ignorant more and more reasons to change their ignorance by taking their ability to enjoy things (the hormone system that "produces joy" stops working properly).
Someone can be openminded and imense curious till he is 90 or someone can be not even any curious when he is 20. Its just so that this world produces people that are ignorant so it seems like old people are "normally less curious". Thats not the case. In a world that does not produces ignorance old people will stay curious.
I think it is just that being great at math is really cool if you are a kid and not as interesting if you are an adult.
I also think that a big reason one's biggest discovery is in their 30s is that they are fresh enough in their career to shoot their shot and are fresh from school having had many novel ideas thrown at them. Older people have the problem of not wanting to put anything out there that tarnishes their reputation and are also farther removed from that influx of new ideas coming from school.
For this same reason it is often younger doctors, not the more experienced, that accurately diagnose people. Counter intuitive but they found it is true.
I'm way more creative at the age of 38 than I was when I was 20 (when I was only interested in gaming). I spend more time now studying history, writing, and drawing comics than I ever did before.
Everyone forgets about Paul Dirac. Paul was insane-ly smart. So much so that when asked to comment on him Einstein said: "I have trouble with Dirac. This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful."
Yeah most of them don't know he even existed and his work
😂😂😂 By "everyone," you mean the average person.
Gauss is even more important than Dirac and the "average" person has ZERO clue who Gauss is.
Gauss would make Dirac's mathematical ability look sophomoric compared to his.
And Riemann's contributions to mathematics are arguably just as important as Gauss (or close to it).
And, sorry, but even Dirac was in awe of Einstein:
"Einstein's General Relativity is the greatest ever invention of the human mind." - Paul M. Dirac
@@Priyanand-kj5ch😂😂😂 Yes, and 99.9% of people have no clue what a Lagrangian is either.
Gauss is even more important than Dirac and the "average" person has ZERO clue who Gauss is.
Gauss would make Dirac's mathematical ability look sophomoric compared to his.
And Riemann's contributions to mathematics are arguably just as important as Gauss (or close to it).
And, sorry, but even Dirac was in awe of Einstein:
"Einstein's General Relativity is the greatest ever invention of the human mind." - Paul M. Dirac
@@persephonepercy7646💯
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Right, but it is often that such great thinkers also practice great epistemic humility
Hawking was a very accomplished scientist, but his reputation was based more upon his extraordinary medical situation and his catchy books titles (like “A Brief History of Time”) rather than any remarkable breakthroughs in physics. He is more a Neil deGrasse Tyson than a Niels Bohr in that his media fame far exceeded his academic accomplishments.
Probably his most significant discovery was Hawking radiation, but even that wasn’t close to getting him nominated for the Nobel Prize (which presumably leaves him behind the 216 scientists who have actually won a Nobel Prize for physics). When you compare his achievements to the true greats: Einstein, Newton, Feynman, Heisenberg, et al, he doesn’t really belong in that hallowed company.
Cope and seethe regarding the brilliant intellect of Stephen Hawking; are you upset because you did not receive a noble prize in physics? It is okay to be jealous of other people's accomplishments⸮ Anyway, you can continue to hope to become somebody like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson; also, you do not belong even in the hallowed company of the mentally deficient.
He was probably pushed because of the atheist trend looking for justication in scientific figures. The books he was known for were actually outside the scope of his field of expertise.
Well, Hawking couldn't win the Nobel prize because his theories were never confirmed with observational data. There are many theoretical physicists who never won the Nobel Prize for the same reason even though their work is revolutionary in the field. If they ever do prove Hawking radiation and some of his other theories it would take a lot of advanced tech to do so as opposed to a camera taking a picture during an eclipse. That's not to say that Einsteins' theory was not impressive. Plus another example of why not winning medals shouldn't be a disqualifier for genius is the mathematician John Von Neumann who never won the field medal even though he has produced a large body of influential work. I could go on. To say Hawking was just a media figure like Tyson or Bill Nye is just an insult. I mean Tyson gets stuff about nuclear radiation wrong on top of being annoying. Overall all of this is relatively subjective and kinda pointless. I mean Hawking is a genius and Einstein is a genius, regardless of what type they are. The video didn't really make a great argument for why we need to classify geniuses into peerless vs ordinary. At the end of the day who cares, what's your point.
@@alexschaefer8255 // At the end of the day who cares, what's your point.// This is true for U also. Furthermore, I don't want to convince this idea to others and this is also a copy from Quora.
U have no idea about what they have done. If you ask someone who knows some theoretical physics, you will realize there is a clear difference between what Einstein, Heisenberg, and Hawking had done. Generally, people who made paradigm shifts are considered as greatest.(Not just a new idea, whole framework) There are 4 such in physics.
1.Newtonian Mechanics(Newton,Gallilio)
2.Tharmodynamics(Boltzmann, Clausius)
3.Relativity(Einstein[Yes he used previous ideas of Lagrange, Lorentz])
4. Quantum mechanics( Plank,Schrodinger,Dirac,Heisenberg)
Unification of forces & QFT(Shwenger,Abdus,Glashow,Weinberg,David gross[all won nobels])
The above scientists and a few others(not mentioned) made the whole framework(not just a theory). So their class is different. Here I wanted to say he is not comparable with Einstein which most people who know nothing about physics(Especially the media)always do. This is not to insult him.
I'm taking Neil over Neils. Neils might get us killed.
The ending thought is exactly why all education should be free.
Free for who? The people who learn or the people who teach?
Lower cost all around for the students and pay the teachers more.
The cost of education was virtually free in the 1960s we can do it again.
Education in European countries and china are low af, we can do it too.
Nothing is free
Education is about indoctrination, not about truth.
@@SoloBroBroGender studies must be one of them...
"THE ONLY factor for why I am completely sure that scientist make their biggest discoveries often at the beginning of their career and only at that time (and already STARTING at the PhD program' time-the scientific base of his or her future geniuses peerless accomplishments !) is that : TOTAL ,NAIVE , IDEALISTIC AND FULL TIME PASSION FOR THE SET OF PROBLEMS THAT HE OR SHE IS TRYING TO SOLVE ,MOSTLY IN THE CASE ALONE AND WITHOUT FULL TECHNICAL HELP AND COLLABORATION ! "
"Thinking outside the box" is such a common meme that it's practically become a cliche, but I believe that's what separated Einstein from his contemporaries. There were probably a thousand physicists who had Einstein's level of technical knowledge, but he was the only one able to expand his mind to see the universe (especially time) in a new way.
A non open minded scientist can descover what he knows that he dont know it.
An open minded scientist can discover what he dont know that he dont know it.
And by far to discover what we dont know we dont know will always be more impactfull. You can replace someone who researches something that we know we dont know with anyone who is educated enough. But you cant replace someone that is not open minded with someone who is not to find out something we dont even know we dont know. Then it will never be discovered.
Unfortunatly most of nodern science is not covered with really open minded people because our education system prefers those who are not or are willing to stop beeing openminded.
That’s a very flawed outlook that other physicists in Einsteins time had the technical knowledge but lacked exponential thinking. There was none or a handful who could even keep up with his thinking, when he was trying to finish his special theory of relativity, almost all physicist gave up, and a mathematician took up the mantle to try and solve it. It’s to the very same level as Ramanujan compared to all the mathematical minds of his time, the only one close to his level was Hardy and even him, he couldn’t compute at his level. It’s the same as having a CPU at 5.0ghz vs a 2.0ghz. They both can take in theories and algorithms but the 5.0 will compute faster and spit out more complex algorithms of put to the task.
TL;DR everyone was outclassed by these peerless geniuses not bc they could expand or were more creative, but for the simple reason that they had an amazing ability to compute that they couldn’t even explain. Ramanujan described it as if his god was literally feeding him equations that for as smart as others were, they couldn’t seem them. Ramanujans contemporaries had more classical teachings and all the theory(technical knowledge) to presumably best him, and none could, he just had “it”.
@@Pineapplelesspineapplepizza You do realize that Einstein actually needed help with the math, right?
@@pcbacklash_3261 he didn’t need help with the math for his theory. And your point doesn’t stand because he beat the mathematician to solving the special theory and even pointed out a mistaken in the mathematicians initial claim of saying he solved it. It’s a common misconception to think Einstein was bad at math like many claim. His wife Minerva never reported anything like that and she worked with him.
@@Pineapplelesspineapplepizza All I know is what I've read from other physicists who've explained his theories in books. I wish I could remember more, but it was a long time ago.
Then again, you've made a handful of claims as well, for which you offer no evidence. So perhaps you should stick to pizza.
I've never heard of Albert-László Barabási in my life. I start taking a Network Science class 3 weeks ago with his book, and he is suddenly everywhere :)
The algorithm has caught up with you 😂
@@larryphotography I had to drop the class, but I'm taking it again next semester. It is AWSOME!
Baader Meinhoff
The genius of Stephen hawking is regardless of his condition he kept going and pushed the boundaries. Wrote incredible books that inspired millions of young people around the world to pursue science and think science so in my opinion, Hawking was far away from an ordinary genius
I rate him higher than Einstein.
You're mixing completely different things. Influence is not a measure of genius. Genius is a measure of creativity and quality of work in their field. It's simply factual that Hawking's work *in physics* is not of sufficient quality to put him in the "peerless genius" category. Carl Sagan was another great man that had incredible influence in science communication, and was also a real scientist who did research, and was considered extremely intelligent. He was not a peerless genius in science, despite having an influence far exceeding Hawking. Of course, we can name numerous "influencers" in society and by your standard, they would be peerless geniuses because of how much they influence people.
Few people outside of the Cambridge physics department rated Hawking as a world class genius.
@@idaraokon7387that's actually just ignorant
@@Tom-vu1wr I think both Einstein & hawking were equal, Cause Hawking revolutionised physics in same way Einstein did century ago
This is a very interesting analysis of “genius” and what it really means. I wonder what the general consensus is on the “ordinary” and “peerless” categories mentioned here. While some may only consider the latter truly genius with the former being merely highly intelligent and productive, I believe that anyone who’s ideas and implementation of them expand the edges or connect different isolated areas of humanity’s knowledge of the objective deserves the label. The general public and the scientific community recognize many individuals throughout history who fit the description, but this video reminds me that, tragically, there have probably been countless others on the cusp of “genius” level contributions who lived and died without ever making them or being acknowledged for doing so. We definitely should seek out the most clever and tenacious minds of our day to develop ways to better nurture genius and give anyone displaying signs of it what they need to flourish. The humans of today and the future need it.
4:00 Kant was 57-58 when he published the Critique of Pure Reason
I wouldn't exactly consider him a scientist.
I wish someone could go back in time and burn Kant. It would save the world hundreds of years of scientific stagnation.
That Q factor is basically the measure of how good at synthesizing and transmitting new ideas people are. I think everyone that is in the right circumstances can come up with them, but sharing them with others and convincing people with all the hardships that comes with communication, clashing interests and personalities is the biggest hurdle and differentiator.
I find most modern science to be simply finding solutions to our problems that we shouldnt have in the first place.
You make an excellent point. War, disease. But also we have geniuses who explain how our universe works.
Not the point of the video, but i love his style. Especially his classes.
I love the after age of 30 quote. Einstein developed General Relativity after the age of 30, but I guess that rule doesn't apply to him. But it gives us a justification for rampant ageism, and makes Mark Zuckerberg's "young people are just smarter" comment sound less ignorant.
Younger people are not smarter.
They are faster with more stamina but the thoughts can be worse quality but more and with more tries and corrections.
To be fair he said major contribution. His miraculous year was 1905, he was 26 at the time
He said, if you have not made a major contribution to science by the time you are 30, you are unlikely to. 😮
Einstein was 26.
@@123abc-wy6fe 26 when he developed Special Relativity, but in his 30s when he did General Relativity.
Just 5 papers that Einstein published in his miracle years of 1905 is enough to earn him the title of peerless. However, his life works is so much more. The truly genius among genius...
Nobody comes close to Newtown
@@scoobydoo5164 feynman: hold my beer
@@salihalbayrak-es8ky what do u mean? Feynman is not remotely comparable to newton
@@Tom-vu1wr here's the thing: the accomplishments and your intelligence don't alwways correlate, newton had greater accomplishments than feynman (I think even that's debatable but I wouldn't have objections to it) but feynman literally didn't even try, he never used his full potential. instead he hanged out, somewhere got interested in art and fooled around with him, got interested in computers and mostly dedicated himself to education. he was also VERY social, had kids, married 2 times etc. and also had a chapter in his life where he only worked on the atomic bomb (which he again had great accomplishments). newton was asocial, almost had no friends, didn't have a wife and kids, if I'm correct didn't teach much in university, and aside from religion almost never diverted from math and physics.
so what I'm saying is feynman just lived his life and didn't actually give shit about anything much, he just wanted to enjoy life thus never reached his full potential. both geniuses but I think feynman is more special, and honestly I think if feynman lived in the same time period with newton he could've discovered almost everything he discovered, he is famous for explaining newton's works so clearly and easily, this shows how strong his grab is on newton's findings and I think it says something
@@salihalbayrak-es8ky I think that the fact that you say Newton's accomplishment seeing more than Feynmans is somewhat debatable is completely ridiculous. Understanding something well is completely incromparable to inventing it and Ur just basing this off the fact u like Feynman. I mean Feynman was very smart but this is a totally baseless argument.
That’s why you have to just focus on achievement without expectation of reward. You just do what you have to do, and ignore the noise of opinion and reputation as best you can
Obvious answer on Hawking:
1) His personal physical tragedy, which nonetheless left him an enormously compelling and charismatic figure
2) His immensely popular book “A Brief History of Time” coupled with his subsequent celebrity
Edward Witten is broadly considered an insuperable contemporary genius of physics - indeed, mathematics as well - but he’s only a fraction as famous as Hawking. Or even Tyson!
But Hawking found a way to unify physics which einstein failed to do so he is up than witten.
There is no need to push yourself to become a genius or something to gain recognition unless things are coming naturally to you. Live and enjoy your life and one day everyone will be forgotten. Everyone even Einstein.
Remember, Einstein worked 18 to 20 hours a day for years on his general theory of relativity. Hard work pays off!
@@loveydovey4u This exactly. Both Einstein and Feynman recognized the power of working hard. Especially with Feynman it's always such a classical case, the man was a clear genius without any of his accomplishments. Yet he wanted everyone to know his IQ was 125. Which isn't just some number too boost peoples morale. It actually really means something if you understand the subject well.
I once read* that while special relativity was very much a discovery of its time that another scientist would probably have discovered in the next few years if Einstein had not done so, General relativity is such a monumental achievement that were it not for Einstein, we might not have discovered it to this day one hundred years later.
*in Bill Bryson's A Short History of Everything, if my memory serves me well
We would have found out when our GPS systems didn't work right.
I also remember this from "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and if my memory serves me right it was C. P. Snow who said this!
This sounds pretty cool but I wonder if it is actually true for I have heard that David Hilbert was really close to completing General Relativity and Einstein only outpaced him by a little time.
@SAMAC AG
"... For 10.000 Years the world will
laugh about the century of shame."
Really?
And your basis for these assertions is what exactly?
@SAMAC AG The second formulation written by you is that of kinetic energy while the one given by SRT is that of the total energy stored in a mass. It is this energy that gets released on nuclear fission. Now if you don't trust in E=mc2, then where does nuclear power come from?
@SAMAC AG
"Nuclear Power has nothing to do
with Mr. Einstein at all."
So where does nuclear energy come from?
Why is "BBT - unscientific theory"
"... the world will laugh about the century of shame."
Why?
How about giving cogent explanations for your assertions.
One of my good friends doing CS with me at school is a genius in the literal sense. He has an IQ of roughly 140. I'd say what noticeably separates him from the other students is his efficiency. He's able to work for hours and hours at a very fast and precise rate without using nearly as much energy as other students performing the same tasks. He's able to absorb new material very quickly, and put it into practice incredibly efficiently. Pure genetics. It's so amazing watching him rip through problem sets.
bullshit
I think focus, passion and lack of distraction in your early years are big factors. Everyone I know in the science fields have by 30 years old too much else going on either teaching, leading others or family and other commitments. Your late teens and early 20s is a time of freedom not afforded to those older in general.
We are but a block of Marble, at which life carves away to shape who we become. Education isnt the only form of genius, for what is he who merely absorbs existing knowledge, a parrot.
We are not bound by anything, so whos to say we cant do what we like, at whatever period in our lives. You need only break away from the norms to realize that there was never an excuse why you couldnt.
I can't agree with this any more, the impact of family on achievement is profound. For most people family gives them the most meaning in their lives, but the attention required to have one is taken from whatever other pursuits you'd have. I don't think this can ever really change though, just a fact that you can't have optimally achieving and happy humans.
If you are brought up in a less privileged country and environment, the opposite is actually more true. This reeks "only Western countries exist in the world" :)
@@khplaylistyt9729 yeah a lot of kids in poorer families and especially poorer countries have a lot of responsibilities heaped on them.
Money and inaccessibility for the average person
The genius arises from the collective mind's depths, where archetypes and symbols dance, but only through communion with the collective unconscious can the genius be sung. It's through this resonance that creation comes to shine, the product of a mind in tune with the cosmic design.
Hmm. Yes. And psychedelics can lead to some interesting insights, but be careful.
Infinite insights await for those who choose to take psychedelics, but it's crucial to tread gently and caress your mind and spirit while using these powerful tools. Expect that you may encounter uncomfortable or challenging experiences, so it's essential to remember to be gentle with yourself and your surroundings. If the experience becomes too intense, surrender to it in a gentle way and remind yourself that this too shall pass. The experience can unravel the veil, leaving you feeling bare and bewildered, bereft of bearings if you don't approach these experiences with respect, humility, and a willingness to face whatever challenges may arise.
Beautiful!
Despite Hawking unfortunate life predicament he could make such impact, much respect to Hawking,a genius per excellence.
Newton, Gauss, Ramanujan, Einstein, von Neumann, Euler, Galois, Grothendieck, Harish-Chandra are some of the truly peerless genuises.
Tesla above all
Umm it’s a shame Nikola Tesla is left out if only people understood him at a deeper level
Ah yes, tesla above newton, gauss and ramanujan.. just wow
Maxwell too
Grigori Perelman. Still alive to this day. Perhaps the greatest mathematician of all time. Sad that he quit the subject
there is clearly a link between recognised genius and popular appeal. Renata Kallosh is someone who has never written a popular science book whereas Hawking did. He also made news for his dramatic and to some extent, inspiring, personal life. Perhaps the difference is not just between peerless genius and ordinary genius but also between popularly recognised and unrecognised genius.
Totally agree with you. Quality factor is more important than productivity.
Albert Einstein is the most hyped scientist in history. The Peerless Genius title should go to Issac Newton.
You're braindead.
To simplify, genius is not about potential, it is about success and accomplishments, and how others perceive them, essentially, their popularity or reputation. Therefore the same formulae and explanations for what it takes to be successful apply.
I was a mechanic when I was 4-5 8:26 and was always taking things apart and putting them back together, figuring the internet out was fun and playing roblox was fun as well. I then went through traumatic events and lost the ability to create new creative ideas it’s always ideas that just branch off something else. I believe if you are created in the right environment and given the right type of brain you can develop this “genius” level but if you’re given the wrong information then your powerful brain will corrupt itself.
Why hawking? Geez I don’t know, maybe because the man was fully paralysed from an irreversible nerve condition yet still achieved “genius” levels. Of course his peers should have been appropriately rewarded for their contributions, but Hawking was amazing.
Dude Hawking found a way to unify physics which Einstein failed to di
I think a lot of the obsession with young people, which is completely derailing at the moment at universities comes from the social structures in the world and nothing else really. I teach and research in in a "top 10 world ranked uni" in engineering/bioscience and I am more and more perplexed by the degeneration of the concept of "professor". Here is a recent-ish story highlighting my issue:
My uni wrote out a position for a tenure track assistant professorship which was, as often, totally ridiculous. It was the classic "we want an 8-legged unicorn with magical powers" (asking for awards in both teaching and research and very specific other achievements etc etc). I laughed and said you will never find anyone like that. After a long time, out of the ether, a guy emerged with these credentials. He was peerless - but the uni rejected him because at 37 years he was too old. At that moment I almost quit my job. I am supposed to work at a place where the smartest people gather, yet I came to realize my place was run by absolute idiots. To me, a professor should be someone with a lot of experience and WISDOM. This ever-worsening fetish of universities for having all their labs run by babies is an abomination and makes me sick. Don't get me wrong, in no way shape or form do I want to take research opportunities away from young and motivated people, au contrary, the more opportunities the better. But this should be done in a different system, having just more weight put on lead-scientist positions that can have small teams and autonomy. If it was up to me I would make 50 the *minimum* age for a professor. Anyway, sayonara.
amen brother. i couldn't even take a 30 year old prof seriously. at least the majority of them, there's always the odd one out but even they themselves would probably agree that wisdom is an important ingredient to such a teacher
if you had a 25 y/o applicant, who met those criteria, it wouldn't make sense to discriminate against them.
It’s tragic that a person 37 is considered too old for anything at all.
The need for recognition is the greatest human hurdle in the path towards true progress.
It seems like being ‘genius’ is more of a brand identity for many people rather than an actual trait they have
Even if your a young genius, people older than you wont take you seriously because of your age difference, if you dont manage something that wows the public, youll always be patronized. Yet many assume themselves smart and that being labeled a genius is supposed to garner respect from people or hell, that shit will fall into your lap. But it wont. Ive seen the most educated people suffer more than drones, because if you dont kiss ass or challenge society, you are a negative. Why many great minds wernt exactly rich or perfect. Society treated many like trash. Only their deaths saw them receive some acknowledgment. Makes one wonder why people put so much emphasis on the value of intellect.
Which is exactly stupid.
As a young scientist, this is making me feel the pressure of getting something good done before 30 XD
Its ok to not be a genius
It’s not like being 30 is some magical constraint in the fabric of reality or something. There have to be social explanations for this, so contributing before 30 isn’t some kind of endgame. You’ll be the same person even after you hit the number.
Relax there will never be another Einstein or Newton anyway. They were products of their time and the state of scientific development in their day, Newton made discoveries in multiple fields. Nowadays you have hundreds of experts working on one very very specific area that has already been trodden over countless times trying to find that one thing that was overlooked. The lower hanging fruits are gone.
A video about genius and the background of the video flash bangs the genius right out of me every 2 seconds.
Is creativity a function of being young, though, or being new to a field? If you're new, you're not bound by the same ideas of what's doable and what isn't, and you're not bogged down by the same professional responsibilities that someone much further along in their career is. We've seen in the art world, for example, a lot of older women innovating as artists and I think that could be because they're done with other responsibilities in life and are throwing themselves fully in to their art for the first time at a mature age.
I think for your name to be synonymous with "genius" you also have to be a public figure. At the end of the day we're social creatures, and if you can't entertain, tell a good story, or attract attention of the public your efforts will go unrecognized. You see this in careers too, often the ones that progress aren't the most competent, they're just have better people skills.
One thing I'm really surprised he did not mention is the prevalence of mentors ! Many highly successful people from the boxer Floyd Mayweather, to Richard Feynman had a mentor very early on. I'd say all the great minds I've looked into had major help early in their development helping launch them into the "genius" stratum.
He mentioned an upper limit to the age of genius discovery, but didn't mention the lower limit of age. Potentially its the same in academics, but it's clear as day in sports. The best of the best typically started from a very young age.
Makes me think of something i heard about art. No one in the world can make your art but you. So its your duty to make sure the world sees it. And that makes me think how we can have genius level people not having the tools or confidence to live up to their potential
It would be interesting to see a similar analysis of other creative work, e.g. authors in literature, artists in music, writers/directors/actors in movies, painters in art, etc. I'd wager that you can find the same correlation with a Q-factor and less correlation with productivity.
One thing, most of the greatest minds you will never hear of, as they don't have the opportunity to explore it or get recognized.
Think about those in poverty, geniuses that are part of the regular work force...Most "recognized" geniuses were also born into a situation where they can thrive, giving them a leg up. Doesn't make them smarter, just more visible.
One thing, the thing with scientists, most are not geniuses anymore. It's more about your ability in academics than actual thought processing capabilities. A buddy of mine I grew up with is a bio-chemist Dr. He has barely above average IQ, but had all the support he needed in school, including cost of university. Another buddy, with an IQ of 155, who has ADD and never had help from school/home, is now a labor worker. We all get together, and you would be amazed how much the scientist learns (and further understands) things from the labor worker, especially with abstract concepts; but the labor worker has little to learn from the scientist, so "success" is not a measure of genius.
I think there are greater minds out there that we will never hear of. More so than we know of. Especially in the third world. Goes to show that your start and station in life has much more to do with "success" than intellegence.
This is the fact that those in power try to conceal more than anything.
A true genius is one who can walk into a conference of his peers and say " I have something completely new" or a breakthrough that will transform their field.
The level of triviality achieved by this big thinker is staggering.
The level of pretension achieved by this comment is staggering.
@@sgbench He's not wrong.
woke bs
@@AB-et6nj To preemptively finding geniuses in the haystacks is trivial? I think there's a great merit in trying *_not_* to let world's undiscovered potentials go to waste.
@@ultimaxkom8728 I was commenting on the person in the video (and presumably so was OP)
Newton was a "peerless genius."
No you are absolutely wrong
In every sense of the word , dude had no friends 💀
I would argue newton is THE peerless genius
@@atrociousprogrammingthen obviously you’ve never heard of Leonardo da Vinci or Galileo. Newton took Galileo’s ideas after he died then reformed them into principles and laws.
I appreciate that the video mentioned the physicist, Renata Kallosh.
Scientists publish the most papers early in their careers because they are competing for tenure with their peers, which is often decided in the first five years of a professorship. If a PhD has completed their second postdoc and is applying for professorships, they are likely already past 30. Funding drives this machine at least as much as any personal or age-based predictor of “productivity”
I love the show "Big Bang Theory" which thematizes "geniuses". But I think their depiction of "genius" and "smart" was off by a lot. They set up that idea that a genius is someone who knows a lot of trivia and facts about their field and basics, also they were depicted as smart because they know a lot of stuff. As Einstein said, it is not the things you know that makes you a genius, it is your ability to think. He often didnt know basic numeric values of scientific phenomena and processes, because he could simply look up those numbers, when he needed them. It is exactly that what being smart means. Everyone can know about something, but to understand it, you need intelligence.
When einstein discovered special relativity he removed the luminous aether from the theory of time dilation/length contraction just like galileo removed the concentric circles from the revolution equations.
UFC fighter Dominick Cruz also said that what determines the true greats of the sport, isn't just skill-set or amount of wins, but also popularity. I never really understood this, but over time it's kind of made more sense, where you start to see that without the right amount of circumstances that build someone into something 'more', that even those with great records can be brushed aside in history. An extreme and maybe controversial example would be how Bruce Lee is deemed one of the great fighters by some, yet he has barely proven it in competition. Often times, popularity trumps all.
Imagine how many people dont understand the theory of relativity and still, intuitively, we all realise he is a genius
Right, nothing to do with literally all wiki pages, textbooks, documentaries etc. Same with Da Vinci - you can't be able to write and read without being told he was a genius.
Your comment makes a claim that is simply not correct. No one intuitively knows that Einstein is a genius, almost everybody who describes him as one does it simply because that's how the media always depicts Einstein. I think that the researcher in the video should put more emphasis on the role of media in this matter of "genius" discussion.
Most people don't understand the word 'theory'.
He didn't even get his nobel prize for his theory of relativity, he got it for his work on quantum mechanics. Kind of shows how what the public percieves of scientists can really differ from what other scientists percieve.
@@magicalfrijoles6766 *scientific theories
Hawking is mythologised in popular culture as a genius. Physicists haven't thought so both adter and during his career. They wouldn't put him on the top 20 list of physicists. He also speaks English, so the Anglosphere praise him highly
He’s a pop culture scientist.
@@CrabbadabbaNo he most certainly is not.
But Hawking is the one who discovered cause behind big bang and made big bang universally acceptable he also discoverd a way to unify physics which Einstein failed to do
@@Crabbadabba He holds newtons academic position
It depend on each physicsts though because every physicist have critics
I have always liked László Barabási‘s work
Yitang Zhang at the age of 58 made an original contribution to number theory and prime numbers that won him the Ostrowski Prize, a 2014 Cole Prize, a 2014 Rolf Schock Prize, and a 2014 MacArthur Fellowship. And even Einstein at age 56 in 1935 co-authored two important papers, one on wormholes and the other on quantum entanglement, that physicists are still referencing and inspired by today. It is never too late so long as you are curious and asking the right questions.
For every genius, there are one million idiots who think they are geniuses and push forward their stupid ideas. Consequently, societies are skeptical about those who push out of the box thinking.
Real geniuses have to fight and rise above those one million idiots to have their ideas disseminated, accepted, and adopted.
There is a lot of subjectivity in how we define "real genius". Do we even have a working definition? Depends on who you ask, right? Everyone is an idiot at something and a genius at something else. I mean, not necessarily to those extremes, but the point stands.
@@alhfgspResearch harder 😂
For as much as I love professor Hawking , Einstein is truly one of a kind. His importance to physics and strength of ideals are demonstrated by his theories of relativity , revolutionizing every branch of physics with his discoveries.
But hawking did what Einstein failed to do, to unify physics
@@yashJoshi-hn6bf LMFAO the fuck you saying , bro? We can't even unify gravity and SMPP , imagine "unifying physics". What Hawking did was use quantum mechanical principles in cosmology and astrophysics , something done before , just not in the way he did. Einstein , on the other hand , created a whole new branch of physics and revolutionized knowledge on gravitation , leading to absurd insights on secular problem , like the n-bodies problem , and solving others , like the Mercury perihelion precession problem.
@@NaeNzuko There were several attempts to unify gravity & Qm but none have found, before him people don't even know how to approach such problem.
@@NaeNzuko Ok then here we go, Hawking discovered the cause behind big bang & also mathematically proved the theory which made big bang theory universally accepted, This discovery also changed cosmology from being a peripheral field to become one of pillars of modern physics,he also discovered laws of blackholes, Black hole information paradox, hawking-hurtle state And Hawking radiation (which totally changed the entire idea of black holes, general relativity of celestial bodies & Became first successful attempt to unify Gravity & a quantum mechanics), He started new research Areas of Physics like Big bang singularity, Black hole mechanics, Black hole thermodynamics, Black hole information paradox & restarted quantum gravity.
@@yashJoshi-hn6bf yes , it was before Hawking just because it wasn't even a concern before Einstein , since QFT was still being formulated. And , yes , before his works were validated people were already approaching quantum gravity. Also , guess what. Hawking had 90% works on applying general relativity. His work can't be more revolutionary than Einstein's , since his was mostly argumentation through general relativity , he studied the implications of it. By the way , I'm not discrediting professor Hawking by any means , it's just that Einstein is unmatched , no one is even remotely close to him. He was a true genius.
In my book, anyone who is exceptional in one field but still objectively "genius" is an ordinary genius - no matter how influential, it was in an isolated environment - while someone who is a polymath and a genius is a peerless "genius." Einstein, Hawking, etc, were ordinary geniuses; Pythagoras, Julian, Maimonides, Al-Ma'mun, etc, were peerless geniuses.
Newton ?
Back in the day fields were a lot less specialized for example in "Physics" you learned atomic theory of atoms, natural selection and classification of animals, "scientific method“， etc... It was a lot easier to be a polymath back in the day.
@@AlexRodriguez-gb9ez The volume of information accumulated in all fields would suggest that you'd have to be specialized in order to actually make meaningful contributions.
intelligence + timing + relationship to dominate culture + publicity = Genius The last two seem to be what makes or beaks that identification of genius label and can explain why so many females and minorities go unrecognized. No one is looking at them.
I work in academia and there are a LOT of geniuses out there, it blew me away right out of college. competition is very steep
I'm sorry, but saying Einstein was "truly alone" is just outrageous. In my opinion, if only he'd never met his first wife, Mileva Marić, I'm sure no one would know his name right now. She contributed in his work tremendously, she might have even discovered more, than Einstein himself. Moreover, Einstein at some point was broke af, and if Mileva wouldn't support him financially, he would not be able to continue his academic career, and now, most probably, we would be hearing about magnificent genius of Mileva Marić. Who knows, maybe she would have had won even more Nobel prices, than Marie Skłodowska-Currie.
In fact, I strongly suspect that Einstein may have been a sociopath. Because, without a doubt in my mind, he was a grandiose narcissist. And I do agree, he was a genius. Genius of manipulation, deception, gaslighting and exploiting others. He surely was intelligent above average, but he also was, above average, cunning, unethical, deceitful and self-centered.
💙Mileva Marić💜MVP💚
Who hurt you?
@@bradgarrett7159 Are you asking purely out of spite, or are you really curious?
It’s rare to be a Genius but it’s almost impossible to be a genius and born rich at the same time
?
As a (clinically diagnosed) gifted autistic 26-year-old researcher who has encountered a lot of challenges trying to publish my master's research thesis and a paper related to my research because of lack of funding and mental breakdowns, I find this very anxiogenic, though at the same time quite useful to know.
Einstein had two contemporaries that history hasn’t written about with the same reverence-Max Planck and Nikola Tesla
@@PetekDemircioglu-zj9os Planck and Einstein were completely different animals. They had institutional money and theoretical advantages and advancement as their focus were as Tesla was the engineer and finding how to apply his knowledge in real world applications. Curvature of space-time is great but how does it keep the lights on…better yet does it make light?
@@PetekDemircioglu-zj9os hahahah
@@PetekDemircioglu-zj9os scientific advancement for the sake of scientific advancement only serves academic elitism. Necessity is the mother of invention. Invention doesn’t happen without discovery therefore it all has a symbiotic relationship or that newly discovered information is just trivia. Tesla’s biggest failure wasn’t that he was a bad salesman-its was that he couldn’t find the relationship between his discoveries and how to monetize it for further advancement. It only one thing-an electric meter. Had he made a watt meter that measured how much was used every month to charge the user a monthly fee Morgan would have financed him for life.
@@Ojas97 going to mars doesn’t serve science or a rich guy’s ego any more than someone climbing Everest. Yes, your team became ridiculously efficient with your tech and resources but what new science was discovered, what does this prove and how does it serve man’s advancement? Bezos, Brandson and Musk have only reaffirmed private industry is more efficient than government in these endeavors. Rocket engineering still has made little advancement in the last 60 years.
0:29 C. V. "Ramen"??? Really Big Think? Ramen? 😂
😅lol
I teach and do research on these types of questions as well. But in my experience many are a little too uncritical about the meaning of the words that are being bandied around, such as "productivity", or the meaning of mathematical objects such as a 'Q-factor' or an 'h-index'.
With the productivity of a scientist / academic most researchers focus narrowly on 'papers'. Quite often they are not even recognizing that even within modern-day disciplines academic 'papers' are a unit of productivity that is much more meaningful in some disciplines (Maths, Physics, Chemistry,...) than in others (Literature, Philosophy, Arts, ...). But perhaps even more serious, the sole focus on 'papers' not only completely obscures the effort and time spent on 'teaching', but it even feeds into the view that allocating time between teaching and writing papers is a trade-off that 'good scientists' make by writing more and teaching less.
Similarly, the notion of 'impact' is entirely skewed towards impact as measured by citations, not impact through (harder to measure, I agree) teaching. Citation counts also are highly ambiguous. Most decent citation counts would exclude obvious pollutants such as self-citations, but hardly any measures of citation counts would consider removing (or attributing a different weight to) repeat-citations. A researcher could attract a thousand citations based on a publications career-portfolio of 150 papers, and still have only impacted a few dozen researchers. A different researcher could have published significantly fewer papers, say 15, have attracted only a handful of citations, but could have taught literally thousands of students, perhaps a low few hundred of whom have become researchers. Who is to say that researcher didn't have as much, or perhaps even more, impact, just because we don't measure their main contribution?
Finally, it is interesting how in the 'valuation' of the notions of productivity and impact, we see 'citations' as value produced by the authors(s) of the paper being cited, whereas the effort to write those papers that do the citing is provided by the authors of the citing papers. In fact, it is clear from citation network-studies that 'preferential attachment' plays a role here: authors prefer citing papers that have already been cited before. In a sense, the 'citation path' of a paper is very much *also* the product of the effort of others than the author. In many cases the actual impact of a paper isn't generated by that paper, but by the work others do with that paper as one of the inputs into their work.
Network analysis is a great 20th century tool to get a better understanding how research disciplines work and how the interactions between scholars change over time. But if we constrain it by interpreting it in terms of mid-19th century economic thought when it comes to things such as productivity, theory of value, and impact, then I am afraid we are not making the best use of it.
👍👍👍
After some months we know the answer 💀
Sometimes kids who are told that they're intelligent at a young age end up becoming depressed when they grow up. This happens when they assume that they're always going to be smart and hence put the same level of effort into learning as they did when they were younger. But it ends up being inadequate and they start feeling depressed.
intelligence is not permanent, nor is it innate. I think to become truly intelligent, you would have to keep learning and keep working hard.
Thomas Alva Edison once said,
"Genius is only 1% inspiration and and 99% perspiration."
imagine if hawking was normal.
Bro wouldn't just have watched on that island 👀.
Einstein was real genius when the German were stupid enough to let such great minds depart deutschland.
Germant apparently had plenty more since the US hired a bunch of Nazis after the war to run most of their government programs
@@chiquita683
Yeah, plenty more stupidity to begin war, all wars started by lunatics and stupid mentalities and only the innocent pay the price!
Peace to all from Eastern Arabia and loci Oasis.
@@chiquita683 The US and the Soviets did that. Just saying.
True it was stupid of Germany to kill and get rid of such a large educated populace.
My favourite genius might just be Eske Willerslev. He's a 53 year old geneticist that just recently found a new way of bringing using applying the DNA of extinct plant species in agriculture. He just recently received a grant of approximately $80 million dollars from Novo Nordisk to dig more into his discovery and it's applications. Reading his books helped inspire my love for human evolution and biology. It was just announced three days ago that he is being honoured with the Albert Einstein World Award of Science 2024!
Einstein never found himself on epsteins list
Yeah but you have no idea what he got up to
You do realise there was entire science community was present on that island
I disagree, Einstein had help from a lot of people. If he made the discovery being in a room all his life that never interacted with the outside world. I'd agree, he's a peerless genius.
then no real geniuses exist? you know Sapiens haven't always been as advanced as today but were always just "as smart"
discoveries and advancement always depend on those who came before you, doesn't make you any less of a genius
I love how people think that all scientists are merely humble servants without ego and we need to trust them implicitly.
Hawking also could've been a "peerless genius", if he wasn't too busy fiddling lil kid (ISTG, it's a new rapper.)
Meanwhile Nikola Tesla the electrifying genius who made Edison's hair stand on end and power grids go, "Ohm my goodness!"
Albert Einstein was once asked, ‘How does it feel to be the smartest man alive?’, he responded, ‘I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.
Only geniuses that support the round earth scam are supported. Theres trillions of dollars funneled through these money laundering organizations like NASA
@@chiquita683 🤣
@@oisin5684 You should post that a few more times.....
Tesla fans talk about him as though they need to sell him because nobody knows who he is, even though nowadays everybody does
This video is a true gem. Thank you very much.
Education is very important but the way the school system is set up now it sucks all creativity out of you, because we are stuck having to get good grades which means we have to study a lot of useless things in school that you will never use in your life. Instead of studying things freely by what interests us. We are all taught to think the same and do the same by our school system so it really hurts how many geniuses there are.
I remember myself in 3d grade, math was fun outside of the classroom, inside the classroom it was a chore, why should i sit and memorize the multiplication table 1-10 how is that useful? When i could instead just calculate the answer easily. One number per week, 10 weeks for 10 numbers, i can understand that some people want to memorize things. But for me it sucked all the fun out of math even outside of the classroom because it turned math into something incredibly dull but i was still good at it so i never struggled in school with math.
It was first after university that i rediscovered my interest in math on youtube of all things, i am not saying i would have become a genius mathematician, it is simply just an example of what the current school system is doing to young kids. By the end of my path through education i never wanted to have anything to do with it anymore. Thanks to youtube primarily i am now studying a lot of different things just out of sheer interest again.
The school system is an introduction
to unlocking talents and abilities.
See Videos
9 types of Intelligence
Homemade Inventions
Homemade Go Carts
4 Types of Learning
6 Types of Dyslexia
Folding Furniture
Honestly why lowball yourself? Ofc you wouldn't be multiplying 8 digit numbers in your head, but you could still make very significant contributions to mathematics.
Yea but isn't it getting harder to be a peerless genius? With the more things discovered its kinda hard to come up with "new" stuff. Or is it becoming easier because education is getting more accessible?
No I think because people are more susceptible to being a genius than become one
Lmao, idk. A lot of colleges focus on bureaucracy and quantity over quality in publishing.
The only way to become a genius is to have a dream.
@@abel3557 Even the greatest of dreamers is still a dreamer. Only those with luck wisdom and perseverance can truly _realize_ a dream.
@@ultimaxkom8728 Wrong. A dream sparks the will and determination of a person. A fire that ceases to go out. Confusing a wish with a dream is different. A dream is something you're willing to give your entire being for. To work your hardest to accomplish. Even when your chances of success are less than one percent. Isaac Newton had his own dream. He wanted to learn more about the natural world. And to quote him, "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
He spent the majority of his day studying and researching. And he reached the pinnacle of humanity of his time.
Einstein's a peerless genius, Hawking's an ordinary genius, and I'm a subpar genius. I'm just glad to be in the genius category with these two outstanding gentlemen.
Yeah but its not like the ideas weren't floating around before their great work. They just dared to step outside conventions and eventually publish a work. I would love to really analyse how their thought processes compared with their colleagues and every other researcher and simple worker. There is a couple of things they had to do. They had to read and write and work prodigiously. They had to do in a season what others do in a longer period. They had to make their own decisions instead of waiting for permission in order to make the next leap. They are perhaps what everyone should be but aren't. They possibly venture so far ahead that its hard for others to relate to the complexity of their travels. They are the pioneers in the fields they create; they are the template that others work with after them. It could also be they lacked real competition to push back on their ideas, and maybe they did have competition and eventually are validated after their death through experiment.
They definitely have to break out of the flow and do their own work. Maybe that is the difference. They succeeded in being productive and independent. And prodigious enough that sparks fly. And an inspiration occurs, they follow it, expand and write a paper on it.
Although they maybe had godlike efficiency, I prefer to focus on the tangible. What they did, than how they wowed the world.
Stephen Hawking is a genius, you all ignore the fact that he had ALS and was completely paralyzed yet he made great scientific contributions.