1. We are so inundated with genius that we've grown accustomed to it. 2. Some fields have progressed so far that the average person lacks the requisite knowledge to recognize when a new height in the state of the art has been achieved. 3. Because fields have progressed so much it takes teams of people, some being geniuses, to move the needle.
It has always been a team effort though. Einsteins relativity theories was a team effort for example. One geniuses builds on another and synthesizes old information in to new ideas.
Where are all the genius artists, composers, philosophers, writers, and film producers today? I don't know of any, at least not of any under the age of 70.
I would say these are the factors that i believe contribute to this: - As you said some kind of anti-recency bias where works haven't been given time to become noteworthy - many recent scientific discoveries are made by teams with lots of resources instead of one genius. This means any individual who may be a genius involved in that discovery gets lets attention. - a kind of "genius overload" thanks in part due to the internet and nodern media. There are people who have reached histoic levels of skill in their craft, but we hear about all of them sk each individually seems less special. A master pianist today is one in ten thousand, a master pianist in the 18th century was one in ten. - increased specialisation means there are fewer "renaissance" men or women, as to become a leader in one field today you must invest so much time that it is difficult to be at the same level as masters in multiple disciplines
Thanks for your thoughtful input! I believe you and I have identified many of the same themes, although we may have expressed our ideas slightly differently. I appreciate that you took the time to watch my video.
" ... genius involved in that discovery gets lets attention ... " or gets removed. Modern corps and academia really do not like unconventional thinking, except where there is billions to be made. Mostly in electronics, not in medicine. Medicine is very keen on treating and very un-keen on curing, so it is 99.99999% doctrine all the way. I have never thought of piano playing as genius - practice and play the way you like, that is genius, being creative.
@@mddell24It's often the same in IT but in a weird way. Superficiality. Management is following the paint-by-numbers instructions on how to appear innovative, everything becomes a cult-like groupthink, even if you can disprove them.
I think there is a lot of truth to this - and I tackle this concept in my video as well. In the past, as there were fewer people (and fewer educated people), it was certainly easier to stand out.
"To Waste Existence" I wonder, what shall become waste within human entities? As, said entities seek simplistic existence, what shall such, attempt to be? What shall become of thee? For, I wonder is waste, tethered to that of reality? Does that which the human create, simply exist as, waste? For, I wonder, does the simplicity of an artificial existence, lead only to senseless accumulation? To the human, existing absent why, whilst tethering oneself to creation. For, in truth, may we simply be beings of nature? To take oneself from such, may not only disrupt, but, of course, irrevocably alter the way which the human seeks. For, that which exist as artificial, in truth, simply externalizes that of the organism. Meaning, it would seem the human, simply seeks, itself. Rationalizing ways to exist tethered to the human, whilst claiming said existence is tethered to externalities. For, that of competition, is a simple internal existence, relating to that of the organisms, reproductive intention. For, each entity exist tethered to "Winning". Being, that which exist as a zygote. The forming of an entity, now tethered to being. Tethered, to the simplicity of, that which exist as, existence itself. That of replication. That which drives survival, and, procreation. Simply to exist, externally. To be that which is simply able to be. For, within that of competition, as it relates to the external. There seems to be three forms which, human entities continously exist tethered. The first, I would simply deem, "Full Cycle". Within that of the "Full Cycle", that which represents the phallic system takes the form of, the arm, the leg, the club, the bat, the hockey stick. Each existing tethered to, that of a deliver system. That which propels, semen as it attempts to reach the egg. Such an existence is represented, within that of the, ball, the goal, the net. The moment where procreation is actualized, and, existence begins. The second form of externalizing internal reproductive intention, one deems simply, the "Race" stage. Within such, there is only a race to exist as number one. The simplicity of being first. Such an existence is plainly seen within, of course, racing. That of nascar, track. That of, swimming, a marathon. Each existing tethered to the simplicity of being dynamic beings, seeking only to be first. To be that which moves, simply to be that which, exist. The third stage of externalizing, that which exist as internal, relating to that of the organism. Is, of course, existence itself. Within, that of the "Existence" stage, said organism seeks simplistic violence. For, there can only the one. One tethered to being. One able to exist, within, that of the egg. Such an existence was seen plainly in the, coliseum. Where as, gladiators fought to be beings. To be that which, draws breath. To be tethered to, existence. Of course one sees such, within, that of, fighting. That of war, the simplicity of conflict. Each and every combat situation essentially exist in such a way. As to create, the simplicity, of existence. I wonder, since such is tethered to actuality, what truly does the human, create? How is such an existence not tethered to waste, if, within such, be not, even a human mind? Not even the ability to exist as such a kind. For, of course, each human entity tethered to creating such realities, knew not of, why. For, all deem such to be apart of, human life. To be, that which matters. But, of course, such could never matter. Could never be, that which one deems, not only substantive, but, tethered to that of rationality. For, I deem all that exist, absent a mind. Absent, simplistic contemplation leading to immense comprehension, to be tethered to, nothing. Nothing but, uselessness. Nothing but, senseless ascension. Nothing but, a, wasteful, existence...
Many individuals possess hidden potential and extraordinary talents that may classify them as GENIUSES; however, societal recognition (as a genius) often hinges on visible ACHIEVEMENTS and PUBLIC ACLAIM.
I heard that German physicist woman saying that most of our advances have been engineering advances and not scientific ones. Computers, websites, technology, etc. are engineering advances. We haven't had that many advances when it comes to understanding the real mysteries of the Universe lately.
@@deoproximo1572 Hossenfelder? Yeah, she's got plenty of good takes, but it _is _*_kinda_* undersold how many increases in understanding physics has made in the past eight or so decades, probably because of the fact that they're not really applicable to astrophysics or particle physics as most famous revolutions in physics have been.
@@NineInchTyrone Nah, i think we have stagnated in our ability to consider crazy ideas. 300 years ago the idea of flight was crazy, until it wasnt 100 years ago the idea that we could go to the moon was crazy, until it wasnt But now when a scientist discovers stuff liike, spirits possibily being real? thats just pseudoscience, no matter how promising the evidence
@@NineInchTyrone LOL ah yes just because we have not advanced in the mysteries of the universe. It means that now we understand the universe it is now fully solved. Whatever happened to i only know that i know nothing.
I’ve been thinking about this. I think it could be a couple of things. 1- It could possible that there are geniuses in our face but we don’t realize their genius because “you don’t know what you don’t know”. Like us not realizing how good Van Gogh was during his lifetime. 2- They are out there we just don’t know who they are. The first 2 is what I personally believe. 3- The decline in humanities and education, decline of inquisitive students and curiosity, technology ruining our attention. I think technology could be a big thing. Many geniuses we study used their time wisely and with great focus. Today there are many distractions. Another thing is the lack of boredom. Many geniuses let their mind wander and capitalized on serendipity like Einstein, Nietzsche, Aristotle, etc. Today we are kind of always doing something.
Genius is born; university has never 'churned' them out. Over the past 50+ years, those same universities chose quantity over quality, and so from your perspective within a university, it becomes uncommon for you to meet them. There is indeed a bias against genius, which is a bias against diversity of thought. Only 'genius' in the accepted bounds of modernity are allowed to be recognized. We are in a plateau of human history in which the world is literally throwing away advanced potential for the sake of feelings and virtue.
Our perception changed but i think there are just as many high output creative and smart people we would consider a genius if they where put in the right light.
That was my thought, I don't think the modern education system of catering to the lowest-common-denominator, everyone wins, no child left behind, etc... is conducive to cultivating or identifying geniuses. In fact, it probably chases them away and causes them to reject mainstream education and mainstream culture in general in some cases. I'm not saying it was or wasn't intentionally designed this way, but the education system in most first-world countries right now is designed to produce average, predictable workers who can do tasks they are taught to do but don't think too much beyond that, NOT geniuses.
@@DamianSAAAN Overall, I can't say. In regard to identifying and cultivating people of great talent, definitely. Also depends on what period of the past, in most of history the "average" person got no formal education, though they probably got informal education in their family's trade. That'd be impossible to compare to modern education though, it was better at preparing them for that trade, worse at everything else. Our education prepares people to be prepareable for a wide range of careers, which is good for the economy I suppose, but personally I really dislike it.
Interesting video. Thank you. A related note- it was Vincent's brother's wife - Johanna Bonger - who really kickstarted the great painter's reputation . Vincent and Theo - an art dealer- died within a year or so of each other, leaving Ms. Bonger somewhat alone. It was she who translated the letters of their frequent correspondence. It was she who blew on the spark that Vincent had lit in his lifetime. He didn't sell much, no - one or two works and certainly gave away more than he ever sold! But he was known amongst his contemporary artists - artists who are world famous today. Johanna Bonger mothered Van Gogh, post-mortem, and is the reason we know him today. Amazing lady. Thanks again for the video 🐈⬛
Yes that is very true! At the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, there is a section dedicated to explaining exactly what you have stated. Thanks to other people who really loved him, and who cherished his memory and works - they helped the world recognize his genius.
There are two small but significant nuances to this conversation that I want to shed more light on. Firstly, not all genius is equal, and secondly, genius compounds into itself over time. Simply put, there are super-geniuses in this world whom other geniuses comparatively regard as genius; these people are exceptionally rare, even on a global scale. We can think of a normal distribution of ‘genius’ where the centre represents the level of academic achievement / contribution to humanity of the ‘average’ genius, and a ‘super-genius’ is classified by how many deviations higher a person ranks above ‘average’ genius. And then, in terms of the compounding effect, the contributions of all of the ‘super-geniuses’ of the past have been compounded into the baseline level of genius of the present (given the preservation of knowledge). Therefore, contemporary super-geniuses, whose existence is already exceedingly rare, will only become harder and harder for humanity to produce due to this effect. Here’s my hot take. In my opinion, the last time that humanity produced a level of super-genius capable of advancing humanity as a species since Isaac Newton… _was_ Isaac Newton. And if Isaac Newton were born today (while preserving his past contributions) it would be entirely possible for him to pass through modern life relatively unnoticed on an academic level.
Great video. I was born in 1961 (the Punk mini-generation) and think that was the turning point. I can think of oodles of geniuses, but not any born before I. It depends on how you construe what _a genius_ is. If it's someone who does works of genius, it seems obvious there are many, far more than the effects of Norman Borlaug's _Green Revolution_ can account for. If it is someone who also is known, the number goes to a trickle. You mention competition. This is like how Peter Turchin in _End Times_ described overproduction of elites, as happened in Weimar Germany and the current United States and other places. There's a warning here. This does not explain why we have Jeff Bezos instead of Sam Walton, Elon Musk instead of Henry Ford, Tim Cook instead of Steve Jobs, Satya Naleda instead of Bill Gates, Bob Iger instead of Walt Disney and, well, Russell T. Davies instead of Russell T. Davies (it's complicated). What I think happened is that the three political movements of the 20th Century--fascism, neoliberalism, and authoritarian socialism have replaced the individual by the corporation or state. (The much-vaunted _political spectrum_ consists overwhelmingly of people arguing over whether corporations or states should be in charge of dehumanization.) This sort of makes sense, as the one place you can find recognized geniuses is in postmodern philosophy, which rejects all three. (Of course, rationalists hate them, but that's because they are not very bright.) So the people who are known are at best only geniuses in the realm of _con artistry,_ either in government, persuading people to vote for what's bad for them, or industry, persuading people to buy overpriced crud. You also said something about prison, which I found interesting. You've never heard of me, but I did one work of genius in the late 1980s, a scientific visualization package called _SciAn._ It's dead now, but it influenced pretty much every piece of software CZcamsrs use to make animated scientific illustrations. I was in prison for years. (Long story, false and wrongful conviction, physical torture, written death threat you can see in the circle, nobody cares, back, not quite dead, big surprise, never mind.) Even though my work is in computational cognitive linguistics, which requires computers that don't exist in federal prison, the esteemed and pressed Lee and Ellen of the Prison Book Program at the Lucy Parsons Bookstore fed me with appropriate books for free. (If there is anybody out there who has money and wants to prevent prisons from destroying minds, which I quite frankly doubt, send them some money.) Now I'm working on my second work of genius. This time, I won't be giving it away for free as I did _SciAn,_ because I was a scientist at a publicly funded university. This time, I'll try as well as I can to take a bite out of Google's haunch so I can be hap hap happy. They had two opportunities to hire me, and they screwed the pooch on both of them.
Fanatics topic. But just some advise from my end as one of your viewers: (1) keep the clips no longer than 15 min if you want your channel to grow quickly (2) try to use some sort of ppt with bullet points to better remember your ideas (3) minimize the needless portions and repetitions (less wordy and more facts) (4) references for your statements (5) best to do your talks in a closed room without distractions in the environment
29:47 no... We live in a world where teachers in general have no idea how to deal with students too far above average... Because the systems themselves are not designed for those students... Thus, they are buried... My existence in this world stands as testimony to this...
Discouraged self de-selector here, trapped in a battle to escape the disquiet of a mind that refuses to let me forget the fact. Contentment from within is just around the corner, surely.
Totally agree with your points in pt 2. I would add: not only is the population of people immense, but so also is the /rate of growth/ of the population over a relatively brief period. Societies have not fully scaled to the needs of their populations including the need (for those who want to) to contribute and be recognised.
Yes, I agree, Weapons of Mass Instruction is an excellent book, and explains why the current education system emphasizes the "hidden curriculum" of obedience and acceptance of authority, rather than teaching the important skills that makes one successful in life. Gatto encourages that students engage in self-directed learning, and to make learning a life-long passion.
@@RandyAi2007 From the book “For the first two centuries of our existence, such an institution would have been unthinkable-the young were too valuable a part of economic and social reality. Indispensable, in fact. But when the young were assigned to consume, not produce; when they were ordered to be passive, not active, as part of the general society, the schools we have were the inevitable result of this transformation.” There are “no more” geniuses because of the conformity school teaches. You’re told what to think, when to think, how to think. In school, there’s one right answer. The rest-including the ones you might come up with-are wrong. But you know there are many right answers. The geniuses you mentioned followed their curiosity (at the risk of being mocked by the masses) rather than the instructions taught in school. In fact, most of them were against schooling, but not education. For one allows the mind to flourish when the other kills the soul. There are many geniuses nowadays, I would argue. But I fear that most of them are too afraid to go against the grain. For the price of humiliation seems higher than it ever was-or so it seems at least.
@@RandyAi2007 From the book “For the first two centuries of our existence, such an institution would have been unthinkable-the young were too valuable a part of economic and social reality. Indispensable, in fact. But when the young were assigned to consume, not produce; when they were ordered to be passive, not active, as part of the general society, the schools we have were the inevitable result of this transformation.” There are “no more” geniuses because of the conformity school teaches. You’re told what to think, when to think, how to think. In school, there’s one right answer. The rest-including the ones you might come up with-are wrong. But you know there are many right answers. The geniuses you mentioned followed their curiosity (at the risk of being mocked by the masses) rather than the instructions taught in school. In fact, most of them were against schooling, but not education. For one allows the mind to flourish when the other kills the soul. There are many geniuses nowadays, I would argue. But I fear that most of them are too afraid to go against the grain. For the price of humiliation seems higher than it ever was-or so it seems at least.
When you asked if I could think of any geniuses that are alive today, the first people that I thought of were musicians who have in my opinion influenced or creatively improved my favorite genre, in a way that cannot be replicated by others. They created new patterns in an existing network of ideas. But I think that genius is a judgement that arises from looking back and comparing the achievements of different people and how they impacted society. It’s hard to recognize genius when it’s happening.
There are maybe a few cinema geniuses. Scorsese, Tarantino, Cohen brothers, as an example. I think this gives a clue why there aren’t many geniuses elsewhere, for example why there aren’t more Mozart’s or Bach’s. Even though there are many people educated in formal music from a young age. Movies are just the main public artform that people relate to, and if you think out of the box as a film maker people will understand and care. With something like understanding reality, we have a split in people that are physicist refusing to think out of the box, or creating an off putting environment for people that do. and then then are people that exclusively think out of the box, and enjoy mysteries, such as psychedelic people and various mystical philosophers, but they are unlikely to engage In physics, because they ether don’t respect it, or don’t feel like their perspective would be respected. And simultaneously don’t feel themselves qualified, after all look at these engineers building space ships and cranes. This example can answer also the previous example with the music. A tradition based on the works of geniuses gets developed, where it is very intimidating to any individual to try to do something original rather than strictly adhering to the education, this basically describes people studying music, and maybe even physics. This would be remedied by teaching people to make a naive and sincere attempt to have an original thought.
I think alot of people are geniuses in different areas, but society the way the system we’re living under is designed, crushes those different passions and creativity in order to get the individual to produce more output for whatever society wants at the time. So whatever the individual is a genius in, there’s often just no money in that, so sadly they need to give it up most of the time, and maybe get another job or pick up another degree or whatever. They may not be a genius in math or science, but possibly a genius in drawing and making art, a genius in meditation and going into incredibly deep conscious states, a genius in novel writing, a genius in philosophy and studying how reality works. I’m sure theres a TON of people that are geniuses in those areas in todays age, but notice with all those things I mentioned, there’s no money in that sadly, society just doesn’t care for it and only wants to make more widget producers it seems. In my case, and I say this as non arrogantly as possible, I think I’m a genius in meditation and I mentioned going into very deep conscious states. But guess what, there’s ZERO money in that and requires a lot of time, and I still need to get my other degree (first one was not a good idea). It’s my dream to meditate more and more and to go deeper and deeper, and to see what’s revealed to me what I learn from meditation. Until we change this widget producing culture, people will further decent away from expressing their true potentials, and even worse we could have a collective “giving up” on everything, as we’re already seeing signs of, a lot of people are not even trying anymore. Everyone is different shapes, you can’t try to force everyone to fit in square holes and be geniuses in the same areas.
Currently, I'm working toward completing a 350+ paged 4-dimensional spatial geometry book... Between life obligations and a practical menial task job to survive... Without any support, peers, etc... I've been sitting on quantum gravity and a new realist methodology for 7 years already... Those were 10 years worth of work side by side with each other... The quantum gravity theory was an additional year of chasing my tail and crash coursing into relevant subjects... I'm assuming the world would consider me a "genius" despite my not acknowledging geniuses even exist... And despite this world essentially attempting to bury me nearly every way imaginable... The 4-dimensional geometry book will only be my introduction to the world, with far more to follow thereafter... I should add : 48 years old in New Jersey, USA...
@@Sidionian I happen to be very creative... I still can't seem to imagine that, at all... Not sure why I would bother trying to imagine such nonsense , if I'm to be completely honest...
@@marcreiter5675 Unless you have an airtight mathematical formalism that can derive what we currently know, explain what we don't know, and predict what we can know in the future, nobody is going to waste even 1 minute of their time on your 365 page brain fart. Be your own harshest critic instead of deluding yourself into believing you're a genius.
I'm 24. I'm gifted but I'm no genius. I have hypothesized that my generation's access to information, in combination with the nature of intelligibility, has resulted in a more conformant ideology and pedagogy. The matter in which information is presented to us creates the illusion that the divergent pathways that would lead to breakthroughs are intellectually meritless. Another way to put it is that we only recognize paradigm shifting genius, and each paradigm shift is itself a novelty that leads to stagnation, because the merit that made this divergent idea shift the paradigm has now produced a new conformity for the pioneers of that field to converge on
I think it's also that the system became to complex for individuals to be recognised. The Caravaggios and Michelangelos of today are probably nameless visual artists at a game or film studio. The Einsteins of today are some nameless professors at a university or science centre. The low hanging fruits in physics are already picked up and physics has stagnated (not due a lack of trying, it's just that the remaining problems are way harder). Also in other fields of science its the big teams that make the great breakthroughs and not individuals any more.
An interesting thing in physics: The Double slit experiment. I never believed that old idea about wave interference because it did not make sense, I thought I must be the mad one. I had a very different idea and the individual photon/particle pattern is predicted. So I am waiting for someone to come up with the same idea. ----> There is still room for thinking.
@@mddell24 Thanks for reply! I unfortunately never looked deeply into The Double slit experiment (I'm a artist). But I would love to live in a time when groundbreaking discoveries in science are being made again. It could inspire society in fascinating ways and further transform philosophy and culture. Like when Einstein developed his theories of relativity... While we are living in a time of great change also, I feel that these changes are detrimental on an individual level and negative for our personal growth. I completely agree with you on that point (as you mentioned in your video). As an artist and filmmaker, it seems to me that we're destined to endlessly replicate the art of our predecessors. Everything feels as if it has already been done. I sense that we are in a prolonged era of cultural and intellectual stagnation, and AI and social media seems to be exacerbating this. Rather than pushing us forward, it feels like it's making things worse in my opinion.
@@RuthvenMurgatroyd All the historical geniuses are just regular people who worked hard and were lucky to be in the right circumstances to sharpen their intelligence. And they're mostly not instantly appreciated during their lifetime. Only after we see the results of their work years later that we start to celebrate them.
@@StdDev99 Absolutely not. The reason they are remembered as geniuses is because they had peculiar circumstances (wealth, intelligence, opportunity, etc.) which allowed them to do what they did. It couldn't have been "just anyone". This attitude just ignores the circumstances which lead to these discoveries and such is simply unhelpful.
@@StdDev99 what? lol. you're coping extremely hard. they ARENT just regular people who worked hard and were lucky. you think if you put 100 "blank slate" people in einsteins shoes they would come out the same caliber? do you know what genetics are, or IQ?
They were, or some of them were, really geniuses. But many more who were forgotten also were, and many people today who will never get that recognition or will only get it after death are also geniuses. It's just a matter of definition
Great points all round, could pretty much write a Malcolm Gladwell-esqe NYT bestseller! Crazy times we live in. Negligible productive and artistic merit in the AI scenario is unsettling but also i think, liberating. While most may find nihilistic hedonism enabled by UBI as the only sane conclusion, I believe it will help transcend us towards a post-scarcity ideology for humanity that finds new meaning and purpose, as if there is some expansive one-way ness in the journey of consciousness in the universe
Thank you for your thoughtful and positive comments! It means a lot to me that you think I can turn this speech into a book (and at the level of Malcolm Galdwell, no less!). I will think about that, and I may do so!
I think there are two factors that are generally overlooked: 1. Nowadays, everybody has less time, because even upper middle class people cook/clean/take care of the kids, etc. Men as well. This isn't bad, but it's a thing to consider. Maybe our genius™ is just busy with their bs job, laundry and doing the dishes. 2. It's not only that there is more to know in each subject (the specialisation factor), but that to legitimately do anything in any one field (and accrue funding), you'd have to get a degree.. Which takes time. Maybe genius™ is out there, knowing everything about most of things, but nobody's listening to them, because they're not an accredited expert™ and can't conduct studies, because nobody funds a jack of all trades. Or in short: modern academia is pretty hostile to actual science. (The art world isn't any better, if we're taking about genius in that field.)
@@Nah_Bohdi ....I don't 🥸💀 It's obvious claiming mastery is what happens. No master was created or any nonsense. So another bloke comes along and proof of their claim is validated and the "title" is given to the persona based on (...). Not some blossoming of a master just some imaginary children's game that adults take way too close to their hearts. What goes on in your narrative?
All the geniuses must have gone to a far away land of contemplation-where the Wi-Fi is weak, but the thoughts are strong. Or perhaps they're all busy struggling to climb a tree, trying to impress the rest of us.🙃
@@RandyAi2007 yeah so the more concise a title is, while still conveying the relevant topic (or the most inmediately relevant one, if there are multiple topics) of the video, the more likely people are going to gain interest in it. Concise titles help to convey information faster while scrolling, increase a little more intrigue through mild ambiguity, and display more professionalism. A lot of broader videos can succeed with one-word titles, as a single word can convey the video's entire topic. There's a lot of different ways to have fun with this, including memes and abstract titles. Probably the shortest title I could come up with for this video would be "Why we've run out of geniuses"
19:38 57:36 That is really sad. I just remember him being amazed at a 'beautiful play' the computer made. I think maybe the media I watched put a very positive spin on things.
Unfortunately Lee Sedol (the best Go player in the world at the time) retired after being beaten by the artificial intelligence program AlphaGo. I highly recommend that you watch the documentary "AlphaGo" which goes into the match in detail. However, the documentary does not explore the subsequent psychological effects that the defeat had on him. This is a quote from the Wikipedia page about him: On 19 November 2019, Lee announced his retirement from professional play, stating that he could never be the top overall player of Go due to the increasing dominance of AI. Lee referred to them as being "an entity that cannot be defeated". In a 2024 New York Times article, Lee said, "losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing." He also offered additional insight behind why he retired, "I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired."
It's the first option: geniuses aren't being widely recognized. The main reason is that nobody is popularizing and writing about geniuses in a way that portrays them as geniuses anymore. For there to be "geniuses" there need to be people writing books and articles about them , framing them as geniuses. The current cultural zeitgeist actively discourages genius worship, and emphasizes collaboration and equality instead.
Your video was light and entertaining, a welcomed distraction for me. Thank you! What are your thoughts on potential geniuses? I ask because in addition to being referred to as a real-life analogue of Good Will Hunting by my therapist, I am also categorized by her as a “potential genius.” Of course, the only succinct explanation for my anonymity as a statistical impossibility that I have for you is that I have been a very well-kept secret in the professional psychological community of this country for PC reasons. I trust that because of the self-explanatory nature of the reason that I’ve just given you for my counter-intuitive obscurity (in this part of the world), you need no further clarification than that.
Thanks for viewing my video and for your comments! I hope that you'll have the opportunity in life to self-actualize and reach your full potential as a human being, and also contribute to humanity in the most positive way that you can.
taking quantum physics as an example, how do you become a relative "genius" when even getting to a base level of understanding of something like quantum mechanics requires one to practically be a genius, how can we expect someone to be a genius when the bar to entry is what would've been considered genius just a few generations ago
Or it could be that we're well on our way to touch the very limit of human comprehension and reasoning. Some concepts or ideas become biologically impossible for the human brain to process.
I’d say theres plenty of geniuses. But if they are truly smart they will have abandoned institutions and either started their own companies and families. A university degree ain't what it used to be, neither are any of the institutions. The internet lets people do their own thing.
With the exception of people who are truly smart but want to be something like a dr or professor to teach others how to be Dr's because obviously you can self study how to be those things and if one is altruistic and gifted I can see them going this path
I think we simply dont have environment to recognize geniuses but rather we as a collective society voluntarily choose to damn them and label them as nerds and uncool like Sheldon Cooper. I think as humanity esp. In America people greatly prefer lower intelligence. Sad but I feel it all the time
I grew up hearing that im one of the most original kids out there and was severely depressed in the school system since i was just told to solve a math problem in the shortest time possible without being creative but following a common path of A to B. Like im not supposed to solve in any other way but only the manner that the teacher/instructor/tutoe has told me.
The problem is not someone feels good, it's whether they can feel more (in a multimodal way, motor awareness, body awareness, intellectual planning, emotional context, visual perception, fear and anger, humor and embarrassment) all these information processing systems have to be engaged and active at the same time, the problem is not feeling out the world in a bunch of different ways (social constraints, and social mirroring, surveillance technology, social interventions enacting constraint). It shuts down brain regions when you have to mirror how people reflect how they feel about you in order to remain socially acceptable (the person giving the most attention, is perceived as being the least valuable, therefore the more expressive you are the more you look out of place). It's more about a society and institutional system that doesn't allow inclusivity, and social economic hierarchies are limiting certain brain activity by using data analytics to drive anger and shut down excitement and fun, destroying the victim overtime and not paying the consequences. Hyper psychiatric dogma also has downward forces by pathologizing every mode of being as something that needs to be constrained, inflicting and reinforcing dogma onto the victims. If we eject the psychiatric dogma, use machine learning to find sustainable technology, there will be no reason to pathologize peoples externalities as mental illness that needs to be constrained, which further shuts down brain activity, and destroys the victim over time (allowing more to be pathologized against, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing). When social media influencers harvest personal data to drive anger, they are doing it such a way as to turn good things into bad things, limiting fun and excitement in favor of finding anyway possible to drive outrage and anger and psychologic pain in their victims over time. Hyper psychiatric dogma and intervention is a moral and optimization relativism that is enforced onto the victim.
I think it’s a marketing problem, the problem is that the fruits are no longer as low hanging so it’s harder to explain to the average person what the hell is going on.
In addition to the 3 mechanisms you discuss, to which I would largely agree, there's a 4th one. If we focus on science (in art and literature things probably play out different) any epoch blessed by the presence of true groundbreaking geniouses is followed by a long time of dearth and lack thereof. The cause is the hierarchical nature of scientific knowledge. Science is built upon previous knowledge, which must be fully understood, assimilated and - most importantly - overcome before a new successful paradigm arises. Historically it has been observed that absolute undisputed, groundbreaking geniouses like Aristotle and Plato were such a startling progress in human thought that >1000 years had to go by before anyone with similar attributes and accomplishment could be born. This would explain the long dark middle ages, where the best thing that humans could do - if they were honest - was to repeat, elaborate and comment on Aristotle's and Platos works. Some would say that the dark period would last till the flourishing of scholasticism in XIII century, (which in some way was a development of the greeks, not a complete break with them). Others would say that the next time of geniouses did not come until Renaissance, with Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus.. Another observation in support of the theory is that historically, geniouses come up in crops, in tightly bound groups that face boldly the same problems, starting by a full understanding of their predecessors, then overcoming, correcting or extending them. Notice that Aristotle and Plato were personally related in a small space and time period, and both were inspired by their close predecessor Socrates. Likewise, the XX century revolution in physics was an explosion led by a small bunch of geniouses like Planck, Heissenberg, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and Einstein, with worthy predecessors in Faraday and Maxwell. In maths, the same could be said of the XVIII century, with a large crop of genious mathematicians like Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange, Laplace, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, and the Bernoulli brothers. (All of them closely related in Europe, were science was a close-knit milieu with fluid communication among them). Predecessors here would be Descartes and Fermat ! So geniouses are scarce because they can appear only when the work of previous geniouses are fully assimilated and some people can get to challenge and overcome them. And this is hard to come by, usually achieved only in highly inbred groups of smart people that help and support each other to overcome the dominant existing paradigm. Interesting is the constant presence of the 'predecessors', those who understand the prevailing paradign and point in the righr direction to overcome it, but could not complete it successfully for various reasons, mainly due to the huge undertaking they were aiming for. PS. Another different story is the demographics of smart people. Smart guys and women exist in all places and times, dependent on the size of the group considered, but only a small fraction will achieve a true groundbreaking improvement in received knowledge.
Sorry for the lengthy rants, just a short note on the AI emergence as an end to human creativity and excellence. I don't agree. AI is both incredibly powerful and amazingly stupid. To make the point precise, there's no way AI can find out the solution to the problems of dark matter, dark energy, interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity or the problems in current (LCDM) models in cosmology. NONE of them is going to be solved (or receive a significant boost) from a AI engine. And at least a couple of them will be sorted out in the coming years by humans. Wagers accepted !
I actually really like this theory - in that geniuses arise in cohorts, and are in many ways a product of their socio-economic environment. There were certainly more geniuses during the Renaissance than the Dark Ages. Though as food for thought - I wonder if it is the socio-economic environment that creates the geniuses, or if it is the work of these geniuses that creates the socio-economic environment. So if the latter were the case, we would argue that the Renaissance would not have been possible without figures like Dante, Botticelli, Donatello, Raphael, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Michelangelo. Perhaps there is a synergistic relationship between the two.
@@RandyAi2007 Economics plays a role, in that free markets and division of labor generate afluent societies no longer limited to survival labor and barter exchange. It generates specialization, increased productivity, and elite groups with leisure time to devote to science and culture, organized in the form of schools or universities. Aristotle points out that the first scientists arose when a large group of individuals could be liberated from plain survival labor and could engage in 'leisure' activities. He cites the priestly class in ancient Egypt (same could be said of ancient Babylonians or even China). But social and economic structure, once it has reached a minimum that enables such activities, should not be overstated either. Science has its own internal structure and dynamics. The main factor in developed societies (which in Europe means Greece, Rome and the post-Roman world after Charles the Great and the creation of nation states) is the time it takes to detect and correctly appreciate the inconsistencies, assimilate and improve on the previous paradigm in a consistent way. It takes time and considerable effort to do so. Precisely because there is a whole theoretical structure built on genious complex theoretical models that must be reformulated. When multiple inconsistencies in the old pradigm appear, a new structure with new foundations is needed. Some assumptions kept, others overturned, and consistency must always be ensured. This is hard and it takes the life and deep thought of multiple people to do so... separated by relatively long periods of uneasyness, bewilderment and quick & false attempts at fixing the problems in its surface (cf epicycles, ether, dark matter, multiworld interpretation of qm, even black holes are such attempts). Thanks for generous comment.
@@tonibat59 Yes absolutely, I agree that economics plays a role. In that if you're a subsistence farmer, you are very unlikely to have the leisure time to think of great inventions. Although there are some interesting counter-examples in history as well - where inventions were forged out of desperate economic situations. As they say, necessity is the mother of all invention. For example, the invention of the bicycle by Baron Karl von Drais was precipitated by crop failures that led to the death of horses in his community.
Right, but that would be a remarkable technical achievement, not really a new sci. paradigm. On the other hand, economics and social environment is clearly not enough. I remember now that sophisticated, advanced (for their time) civilizations in pre-Columbus South and Central America who used sophisticated calendars and built large pyramids, did not know a pretty basic technology like the wheel. They never discovered how to pull a cart from an axis and two wheels pinned to it, although they did use rolling cylinders to move weights on them. BTW, nice jacket and bow tie 😅
Genius has nothing to do with knowledge which is mostly words/maths for most people. I have a friend and I suspect they have a Non-internal-monologue mind. I do not want to ask, I want to decern how others conceive of the world. So words are not important. I rarely use words when solving problems which is why I know Psychology will never solve the mental illness thing. It is not an illness and it is not a mental thing. People used to have "Spontaneous remission" mostly from Depression. And oddly, when "mental illness" people recover without drugs or talk, doctors never want to find out how or why. Not so odd, they stay in the consortium's dogma. You are right about the decadence factor. The mind rarely solves a problem it has no need to solve. People no longer draw or doodle because they rarely use pen/pencil. This is a lost skill, it was one of the info outlets for the mind. Tapping buttons or a flat screen does little to trigger neural activity. I have a strong notion that using the hand does much more than playing with ink or piano keys. Have always assumed Leonardo da Vinci started writing: Right-to-Left because he lost the use of his right hand, if you understand. Not much school till after 10yo and very difficult parents - a good formula for a flexible mind.
There is more geniuses today. The problem is all of the obvious things in mathematics and science have been figured out by previous geniuses. I am a mathematician and I have independently discovered countless theorems as a mathematics student. I do not get credit because someone did it before me 200 years ago. My clever little discovery is utterly meaningless because it was not "original", even though it was. This is why there appears to be less geniuses today. I personally have given up on math research for the reasons mentioned. To be a mathematician today is to engage in mostly meaningless research. It's sad but true. Perhaps if we get an actual new theory (graph theory being the last big one), I would return! There are many open theories in graph theory, it's just such an ugly theory.
I am basically learning english from your videos and it's really helpful and also the way you show us the background while walking, feels good watching it ( from india)
There are plenty of living geniuses. 1. Ed Witten 2. Michael Freedman 3. Dennis Sullivan 4. Pierre Deligne 5. Peter Scholze 6. John Tate I could go on.
the importance of the factor of democracy and other freedoms is questionable because places like China, Russia and Japan exist and have not suffered from a lack of geniuses throughout their history I would even suggest the opposite - the worse the conditions for existence, the more likely it is that such people will appear
I don't think it's simply about democracy China has a big population and societal standards imposed by family and government and invasive technologies however they still have a dumb country bc they make buildings out of cheap material that crumble easily from earthquakes. Russia you could say there are geniuses from here ig I see alot of Russians who love making hard iq tests and love math, I'd say there is more academically inclined people but I wouldn't say there is more geniuses. Not so long ago Bobby Fischer cooked all the Russians even while their cheating in chess. Japan after the nuke they went into a technological revolution or something and starting making anime to influence Americans to slowly enact their revenge. I think u have a point about bad conditions bringing out talent but I don't think democracy is inhibiting talent.
The greater the adversity the greater the adaptability the mind will grow. So yep, adversity grew my smarts. But, genius does not make a comfortable place. So do not feel jealous.
Genius capability exists and people are born with it. But the genius still has to actualize himself if he wants recognition from others. If he doesn't want recognition from others he can follow his own compass but his self esteem will know his capacity regardless of if people do or don't. My question is does fame or notoriety and commercial sucess give people the false label of genius. It's easy to create a facade of genius online. And 2nd question I wonder is recognition of genius by the masses even logical? If they are all average people how will they accurately know what is and what's not genius.
Genius is created by working the mind to do/solve a problem that most believe is impossible. Some people will resent your genius because they believed it was impossible to solve. Some people that will benefit will also resent you. Only a few will willingly and quickly accept. Most will conclude "well that was easy."
Yes, I've been thinking about this. Great breakthroughs in human advancement occur when there is great RESISTANCE to creativity. The most common form of resistance is boredom. Faced with boredom, the mind of the genius will create. But with technology, all resistance is being wiped away -- especially boredom. We are constantly entertained by these screens. Therefore, the development of original creativity is slowing. In economics, politics, film, design, novels, fashion, and music. I haven't seen anything shockingly new in 20 years or more. Have you?
Do geniuses actually exist? They're usually highly gifted at one or two things. That's all. People are taught poor ways of thinking, that could shrink the number of exceptionally talented and smart people.
Mathematical systems are actually subjective, since it's dependent on what axioms you subjectively accept to be true, leading to gaps in logical consistency by Godel's theorem (e.g euclidean vs non-euclidean geometry). Therefore genius must also subjective. This implies that AI cannot create works of genius without the perspective of humans. Which means on its own AI cannot create works of genius. A human must be there to at least define it as genius. Maybe humans should start relaxing the axioms they have subjectively accepted to be true to come up with original work that can be considered genius. The permutations are infinite. AI can definitely help with that.
I think now more than ever people are scared to step out of the norm, for if they do they’ll lose their job and oh no we can’t lose access to money and resources! But the truth is, we’ve only been conditioned to think this way to keep society going and producing. There’s actually a lot of merit and value in stepping out of the system. My hot take is: no one actually needs to work. No one actually needs money. Think about it. Everything is already provided for. Food and water can be accessible. You can build your own shelter and grow your own food and collect your own water. There’s a lot of ways to get by without much, we can even bring in community. My point is, taking a step back makes you realize some risks are worth taking. Following your heart and soul is worth more than becoming soulless. The more souls that step out, the more easier it’ll be for everyone until we’re all doing what we came here to do. To create, to transform, to bring ideas to the world. 🌎
Using scientific progress for your definition is an issue. Can read _The End of Science_ by Horgan to see why we have reached limits by that measure. I can think of many, many geniuses if we mean very smart and making important contributions e.g. David Chalmers, Terence Tao, Elon Musk, John Carmack, Chris Langan, Magnus Carlsen, Andrew Wiles, Tim Berners-Lee... in arts, we have collaborative art with no single contributor such as Cyberpunk 2077, Baldur's Gate 3... in music, there is a lot, but a matter of taste e.g. Zakir Hussain, M.J. Keenan, Da Endorphine, Hans Zimmer. That just comes to mind in a few minutes.
Genius here, I either destroy my work or give it to worthwhile individuals. Socializing substantial breakthroughs indiscriminately is not a wise thing to do.
Why? Because others will take ur ideas use it for evil? Or try to profit off them? Or because the idea is good for the world and things that are good the world can make the government loose profit so they deem u as a threat‽¿
@@ShaunAndYoshi the other day I saw a really beautiful field of flowers with really big sunflowers at the center. The next day I saw people stomping the flowers in order to make their way to the center. The day after that the sunflowers were gone.
@@jsrjsr human nature is cruel. What u said kinda reminds me of tall poppy syndrome don't know if I remember that right. But I wish u luck on finding worthwhile individuals that won't take advantage or attempt to stomp all over your ideas or accomplishments or you for being different.
If there are no sunflowers, we protect people from becoming sunflower violators. So is more about compassion for people than the sunflowers themselves :). if you have time, check mononoke episodes 8-9 ( called nue) . Good luck to you too friend.
@@jsrjsr I wanted to come back to this comment because I was watching a video about Schopenhauer (ps thanks for the anime recommendation) When I first read ur comment about compassion i felt like you shouldn't have to hide urself to protect others because people should be accepting of each other's gifts and flaws. But that was idealistc thinking and Schopenhauer explained that when people feel inferior in some way its simply the work of instincts that cause them to behave that way My idealistic notion isnt pheasable because of instinctive human nature. Even if ur a humble smart fella your if your existence is percieved as being intellectually superior. Then you would be hated for existing. But now i understand what you mean by hiding your ability out of compassion for others.
On your last point. This may be me being optimistic but I believe there will be a segment of humanity which come to deeply appreciate the work of real human artists when AI art becomes commonplace. Especially since there will be no incentive for most people to create real art, so the ones that go through the tough process of creating real art will be appreciated more. We may start seeing writers and artist who take the time to complete full bodies of work like mental Olympians lol.
33:41 what parts of, i have : - Quantum gravity... - a new realist methodology... And... - 4-dimensional geometry... Thee Pandora's box to any and all higher dimensional geometries... Did i stutter? 🤔
@@GrifGrey see... That is the funny part... Because, what would truly be the difference between the cranks (which would obviously be in abundant supply), and those non-cranks whom simply slipped through the cracks of society's systems? Or... Are you saying society's systems are so flawless, that such could never happen? Society's systems seem to be designed in such a manner, because there are no actual fail safe systems to acknowledge such possibilities...
@@marcreiter5675 99.9999% of people that say that they've done the impossible, in fact, have not, and I have just seen so many that, frankly, I'm a bit quick to assume that whoever is proclaiming their genius is not one, but if you have done rigorous study, through means of others or your own, go ahead. I do agree with you that our current systems do not nurture genius, and it is possible that you are truly one, but you must sympathize with my skepticism of such a claim. I wish you luck in your studies and research.
@@GrifGrey fair enough, and agreed... And my judgements will come once the 4-dimensional geometry book is done and placed online... Then, the fun begins... Till then 🌹
1. We are so inundated with genius that we've grown accustomed to it. 2. Some fields have progressed so far that the average person lacks the requisite knowledge to recognize when a new height in the state of the art has been achieved. 3. Because fields have progressed so much it takes teams of people, some being geniuses, to move the needle.
It has always been a team effort though. Einsteins relativity theories was a team effort for example. One geniuses builds on another and synthesizes old information in to new ideas.
@@mjgould1192 but didnt give them credit for their equations
@@alexkwak7146
He didn't have to. People already knew where the math came from.
Where are all the genius artists, composers, philosophers, writers, and film producers today? I don't know of any, at least not of any under the age of 70.
@@davemorgan6013
What fiction do you consume? Because, ultimately rather unsurprisingly, you won't see 'em if you don't look. 🤷🏾♂️
I am a genius. I am only procrastinating to conserve my energy. The world is not ready yet. 😎
Your energy is being used everyday, stagnation and lethargy isn't conserving energy
@@ShaunAndYoshi oh, but it is. you just watch me
I feel you dawg. I am in much the same boat myself 😄
I have exactly the same problem, just biding my time 😁
Your definitely an INTP.
I would say these are the factors that i believe contribute to this:
- As you said some kind of anti-recency bias where works haven't been given time to become noteworthy
- many recent scientific discoveries are made by teams with lots of resources instead of one genius. This means any individual who may be a genius involved in that discovery gets lets attention.
- a kind of "genius overload" thanks in part due to the internet and nodern media. There are people who have reached histoic levels of skill in their craft, but we hear about all of them sk each individually seems less special. A master pianist today is one in ten thousand, a master pianist in the 18th century was one in ten.
- increased specialisation means there are fewer "renaissance" men or women, as to become a leader in one field today you must invest so much time that it is difficult to be at the same level as masters in multiple disciplines
Thanks for your thoughtful input! I believe you and I have identified many of the same themes, although we may have expressed our ideas slightly differently. I appreciate that you took the time to watch my video.
" ... genius involved in that discovery gets lets attention ... " or gets removed. Modern corps and academia really do not like unconventional thinking, except where there is billions to be made. Mostly in electronics, not in medicine. Medicine is very keen on treating and very un-keen on curing, so it is 99.99999% doctrine all the way.
I have never thought of piano playing as genius - practice and play the way you like, that is genius, being creative.
@@mddell24It's often the same in IT but in a weird way. Superficiality. Management is following the paint-by-numbers instructions on how to appear innovative, everything becomes a cult-like groupthink, even if you can disprove them.
In my opinion this talk was itself an act of genius. "Be your own genius" is such an inspirational line to live by.
Thank you very much! Your comment means a lot to me. I'm really grateful that I managed to inspire you!
the standard of geniuses has increased so much , a genius of the past would be really smart individual of our time.
I think there is a lot of truth to this - and I tackle this concept in my video as well. In the past, as there were fewer people (and fewer educated people), it was certainly easier to stand out.
I am a genius, wait for some news
k
We will wait for you - I look forward to hearing the news of your accomplishments!
What type of genius what should we expect? a new math discovery?if it’s actually official i’m excited. Please discover something dude i’m truly bored😂
"To Waste Existence"
I wonder,
what shall become waste within human entities?
As,
said entities seek simplistic existence,
what shall such,
attempt to be?
What shall become of thee?
For,
I wonder is waste,
tethered to that of reality?
Does that which the human create,
simply exist as,
waste?
For,
I wonder,
does the simplicity of an artificial existence,
lead only to senseless accumulation?
To the human,
existing absent why,
whilst tethering oneself to creation.
For,
in truth,
may we simply be beings of nature?
To take oneself from such,
may not only disrupt,
but,
of course,
irrevocably alter the way which the human seeks.
For,
that which exist as artificial,
in truth,
simply externalizes that of the organism.
Meaning,
it would seem the human,
simply seeks,
itself.
Rationalizing ways to exist tethered to the human,
whilst claiming said existence is tethered to externalities.
For,
that of competition,
is a simple internal existence,
relating to that of the organisms,
reproductive intention.
For,
each entity exist tethered to "Winning".
Being,
that which exist as a zygote.
The forming of an entity,
now tethered to being.
Tethered,
to the simplicity of,
that which exist as,
existence itself.
That of replication.
That which drives survival,
and,
procreation.
Simply to exist,
externally.
To be that which is simply able to be.
For,
within that of competition,
as it relates to the external.
There seems to be three forms which,
human entities continously exist tethered.
The first,
I would simply deem,
"Full Cycle".
Within that of the "Full Cycle",
that which represents the phallic system takes the form of,
the arm,
the leg,
the club,
the bat,
the hockey stick.
Each existing tethered to,
that of a deliver system.
That which propels,
semen as it attempts to reach the egg.
Such an existence is represented,
within that of the,
ball,
the goal,
the net.
The moment where procreation is actualized,
and,
existence begins.
The second form of externalizing internal reproductive intention,
one deems simply,
the "Race" stage.
Within such,
there is only a race to exist as number one.
The simplicity of being first.
Such an existence is plainly seen within,
of course,
racing.
That of nascar,
track.
That of,
swimming,
a marathon.
Each existing tethered to the simplicity of being dynamic beings,
seeking only to be first.
To be that which moves,
simply to be that which,
exist.
The third stage of externalizing,
that which exist as internal,
relating to that of the organism.
Is,
of course,
existence itself.
Within,
that of the "Existence" stage,
said organism seeks simplistic violence.
For,
there can only the one.
One tethered to being.
One able to exist,
within,
that of the egg.
Such an existence was seen plainly in the,
coliseum.
Where as,
gladiators fought to be beings.
To be that which,
draws breath.
To be tethered to,
existence.
Of course one sees such,
within,
that of,
fighting.
That of war,
the simplicity of conflict.
Each and every combat situation
essentially exist in such a way.
As to create,
the simplicity,
of existence.
I wonder,
since such is tethered to actuality,
what truly does the human,
create?
How is such an existence not tethered to waste,
if,
within such,
be not,
even a human mind?
Not even the ability to exist as such a kind.
For,
of course,
each human entity tethered to creating such realities,
knew not of,
why.
For,
all deem such to be apart of,
human life.
To be,
that which matters.
But,
of course,
such could never matter.
Could never be,
that which one deems,
not only substantive,
but,
tethered to that of rationality.
For,
I deem all that exist,
absent a mind.
Absent,
simplistic contemplation leading to immense comprehension,
to be tethered to,
nothing.
Nothing but,
uselessness.
Nothing but,
senseless ascension.
Nothing but,
a,
wasteful,
existence...
Many individuals possess hidden potential and extraordinary talents that may classify them as GENIUSES; however, societal recognition (as a genius) often hinges on visible ACHIEVEMENTS and PUBLIC ACLAIM.
I heard that German physicist woman saying that most of our advances have been engineering advances and not scientific ones. Computers, websites, technology, etc. are engineering advances. We haven't had that many advances when it comes to understanding the real mysteries of the Universe lately.
Perhaps not many left to describe
@@deoproximo1572
Hossenfelder? Yeah, she's got plenty of good takes, but it _is _*_kinda_* undersold how many increases in understanding physics has made in the past eight or so decades, probably because of the fact that they're not really applicable to astrophysics or particle physics as most famous revolutions in physics have been.
True, but if we keep looking for even more particles instead of any other promising field... yeah well make discoveries eventually for sure
@@NineInchTyrone Nah, i think we have stagnated in our ability to consider crazy ideas.
300 years ago the idea of flight was crazy, until it wasnt
100 years ago the idea that we could go to the moon was crazy, until it wasnt
But now when a scientist discovers stuff liike, spirits possibily being real? thats just pseudoscience, no matter how promising the evidence
@@NineInchTyrone LOL ah yes just because we have not advanced in the mysteries of the universe. It means that now we understand the universe it is now fully solved. Whatever happened to i only know that i know nothing.
I’ve been thinking about this. I think it could be a couple of things. 1- It could possible that there are geniuses in our face but we don’t realize their genius because “you don’t know what you don’t know”. Like us not realizing how good Van Gogh was during his lifetime. 2- They are out there we just don’t know who they are. The first 2 is what I personally believe. 3- The decline in humanities and education, decline of inquisitive students and curiosity, technology ruining our attention.
I think technology could be a big thing. Many geniuses we study used their time wisely and with great focus. Today there are many distractions. Another thing is the lack of boredom. Many geniuses let their mind wander and capitalized on serendipity like Einstein, Nietzsche, Aristotle, etc. Today we are kind of always doing something.
Genius is born; university has never 'churned' them out.
Over the past 50+ years, those same universities chose quantity over quality, and so from your perspective within a university, it becomes uncommon for you to meet them. There is indeed a bias against genius, which is a bias against diversity of thought. Only 'genius' in the accepted bounds of modernity are allowed to be recognized. We are in a plateau of human history in which the world is literally throwing away advanced potential for the sake of feelings and virtue.
Our perception changed but i think there are just as many high output creative and smart people we would consider a genius if they where put in the right light.
we no longer need genius, we need imagination
What's the difference?
@@_.-AAA-._smart people would gamble on the market to get rich and not have to study or work. People with imagination would ban that behaviour.
What if we’re producing geniuses but they’re not going into academia? They could be using that skill for more private accomplishments
That was my thought, I don't think the modern education system of catering to the lowest-common-denominator, everyone wins, no child left behind, etc... is conducive to cultivating or identifying geniuses. In fact, it probably chases them away and causes them to reject mainstream education and mainstream culture in general in some cases.
I'm not saying it was or wasn't intentionally designed this way, but the education system in most first-world countries right now is designed to produce average, predictable workers who can do tasks they are taught to do but don't think too much beyond that, NOT geniuses.
@@Squashmalio In your mind education was better in the past?
@@DamianSAAAN Overall, I can't say. In regard to identifying and cultivating people of great talent, definitely.
Also depends on what period of the past, in most of history the "average" person got no formal education, though they probably got informal education in their family's trade. That'd be impossible to compare to modern education though, it was better at preparing them for that trade, worse at everything else. Our education prepares people to be prepareable for a wide range of careers, which is good for the economy I suppose, but personally I really dislike it.
Interesting video. Thank you. A related note- it was Vincent's brother's wife - Johanna Bonger - who really kickstarted the great painter's reputation . Vincent and Theo - an art dealer- died within a year or so of each other, leaving Ms. Bonger somewhat alone. It was she who translated the letters of their frequent correspondence. It was she who blew on the spark that Vincent had lit in his lifetime. He didn't sell much, no - one or two works and certainly gave away more than he ever sold! But he was known amongst his contemporary artists - artists who are world famous today. Johanna Bonger mothered Van Gogh, post-mortem, and is the reason we know him today. Amazing lady. Thanks again for the video 🐈⬛
Yes that is very true! At the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, there is a section dedicated to explaining exactly what you have stated. Thanks to other people who really loved him, and who cherished his memory and works - they helped the world recognize his genius.
A genius is one who has the capacity to shape the world to fit into his vision
the difference between a genius and a madman is the timing
There are two small but significant nuances to this conversation that I want to shed more light on. Firstly, not all genius is equal, and secondly, genius compounds into itself over time.
Simply put, there are super-geniuses in this world whom other geniuses comparatively regard as genius; these people are exceptionally rare, even on a global scale. We can think of a normal distribution of ‘genius’ where the centre represents the level of academic achievement / contribution to humanity of the ‘average’ genius, and a ‘super-genius’ is classified by how many deviations higher a person ranks above ‘average’ genius.
And then, in terms of the compounding effect, the contributions of all of the ‘super-geniuses’ of the past have been compounded into the baseline level of genius of the present (given the preservation of knowledge). Therefore, contemporary super-geniuses, whose existence is already exceedingly rare, will only become harder and harder for humanity to produce due to this effect.
Here’s my hot take. In my opinion, the last time that humanity produced a level of super-genius capable of advancing humanity as a species since Isaac Newton… _was_ Isaac Newton. And if Isaac Newton were born today (while preserving his past contributions) it would be entirely possible for him to pass through modern life relatively unnoticed on an academic level.
Great video. I was born in 1961 (the Punk mini-generation) and think that was the turning point. I can think of oodles of geniuses, but not any born before I.
It depends on how you construe what _a genius_ is. If it's someone who does works of genius, it seems obvious there are many, far more than the effects of Norman Borlaug's _Green Revolution_ can account for. If it is someone who also is known, the number goes to a trickle.
You mention competition. This is like how Peter Turchin in _End Times_ described overproduction of elites, as happened in Weimar Germany and the current United States and other places. There's a warning here.
This does not explain why we have Jeff Bezos instead of Sam Walton, Elon Musk instead of Henry Ford, Tim Cook instead of Steve Jobs, Satya Naleda instead of Bill Gates, Bob Iger instead of Walt Disney and, well, Russell T. Davies instead of Russell T. Davies (it's complicated).
What I think happened is that the three political movements of the 20th Century--fascism, neoliberalism, and authoritarian socialism have replaced the individual by the corporation or state. (The much-vaunted _political spectrum_ consists overwhelmingly of people arguing over whether corporations or states should be in charge of dehumanization.) This sort of makes sense, as the one place you can find recognized geniuses is in postmodern philosophy, which rejects all three. (Of course, rationalists hate them, but that's because they are not very bright.)
So the people who are known are at best only geniuses in the realm of _con artistry,_ either in government, persuading people to vote for what's bad for them, or industry, persuading people to buy overpriced crud.
You also said something about prison, which I found interesting. You've never heard of me, but I did one work of genius in the late 1980s, a scientific visualization package called _SciAn._ It's dead now, but it influenced pretty much every piece of software CZcamsrs use to make animated scientific illustrations.
I was in prison for years. (Long story, false and wrongful conviction, physical torture, written death threat you can see in the circle, nobody cares, back, not quite dead, big surprise, never mind.) Even though my work is in computational cognitive linguistics, which requires computers that don't exist in federal prison, the esteemed and pressed Lee and Ellen of the Prison Book Program at the Lucy Parsons Bookstore fed me with appropriate books for free. (If there is anybody out there who has money and wants to prevent prisons from destroying minds, which I quite frankly doubt, send them some money.)
Now I'm working on my second work of genius. This time, I won't be giving it away for free as I did _SciAn,_ because I was a scientist at a publicly funded university. This time, I'll try as well as I can to take a bite out of Google's haunch so I can be hap hap happy. They had two opportunities to hire me, and they screwed the pooch on both of them.
Yang Chen Ning is 101 years old, also Terrence Tao in mathematics, so many people in software engineering... There really are plenty.
terrence tao is not a genius
@@divinefavour1289and why's that?
@@divinefavour1289why not
@@ShaunAndYoshia genius creates
@@sillymesilly
Do you _honestly_ believe all artists and mathematicians are geniuses?
Your video has gathered so many inteesting people with no profile picture i havent even got 3 minutes into the video yet
Thanks for viewing my video, and supporting my channel!
i think this guy has genius fashion sense!
Thanks for saying that, what a flattering compliment!
Fanatics topic. But just some advise from my end as one of your viewers:
(1) keep the clips no longer than 15 min if you want your channel to grow quickly
(2) try to use some sort of ppt with bullet points to better remember your ideas
(3) minimize the needless portions and repetitions (less wordy and more facts)
(4) references for your statements
(5) best to do your talks in a closed room without distractions in the environment
Thank you for your suggestions! I appreciate it!
I respectfully differ with the opinions of this comment.
29:47 no... We live in a world where teachers in general have no idea how to deal with students too far above average... Because the systems themselves are not designed for those students... Thus, they are buried... My existence in this world stands as testimony to this...
Preach
Yo this video essay lecture is fire 🔥
Thank you for watching and appreciating my video!! I'm grateful that you enjoyed it!
Discouraged self de-selector here, trapped in a battle to escape the disquiet of a mind that refuses to let me forget the fact. Contentment from within is just around the corner, surely.
Don't give up! And do not go gentle into that good night. Rage rage against the dying of the light.
terrence tao is someone I'd consider a genius, and kendrick lamar is someone I'd consider a musical genius living today
Part of the reason is demoralization in modern society. There is no inspiration
The world is starving for common sense, not geniuses.
Totally agree with your points in pt 2. I would add: not only is the population of people immense, but so also is the /rate of growth/ of the population over a relatively brief period. Societies have not fully scaled to the needs of their populations including the need (for those who want to) to contribute and be recognised.
“Weapons of Mass Instruction” by John Taylor Gatto lays out precisely why this [lack of geniuses nowadays] is the case.
Yes, I agree, Weapons of Mass Instruction is an excellent book, and explains why the current education system emphasizes the "hidden curriculum" of obedience and acceptance of authority, rather than teaching the important skills that makes one successful in life. Gatto encourages that students engage in self-directed learning, and to make learning a life-long passion.
@@RandyAi2007 From the book “For the first two centuries of our existence, such an institution would have been unthinkable-the young were too valuable a part of economic and social reality. Indispensable, in fact. But when the young were assigned to consume, not produce; when they were ordered to be passive, not active, as part of the general society, the schools we have were the inevitable result of this transformation.”
There are “no more” geniuses because of the conformity school teaches. You’re told what to think, when to think, how to think. In school, there’s one right answer. The rest-including the ones you might come up with-are wrong. But you know there are many right answers.
The geniuses you mentioned followed their curiosity (at the risk of being mocked by the masses) rather than the instructions taught in school. In fact, most of them were against schooling, but not education. For one allows the mind to flourish when the other kills the soul.
There are many geniuses nowadays, I would argue. But I fear that most of them are too afraid to go against the grain. For the price of humiliation seems higher than it ever was-or so it seems at least.
@@RandyAi2007 From the book “For the first two centuries of our existence, such an institution would have been unthinkable-the young were too valuable a part of economic and social reality. Indispensable, in fact. But when the young were assigned to consume, not produce; when they were ordered to be passive, not active, as part of the general society, the schools we have were the inevitable result of this transformation.”
There are “no more” geniuses because of the conformity school teaches. You’re told what to think, when to think, how to think. In school, there’s one right answer. The rest-including the ones you might come up with-are wrong. But you know there are many right answers.
The geniuses you mentioned followed their curiosity (at the risk of being mocked by the masses) rather than the instructions taught in school. In fact, most of them were against schooling, but not education. For one allows the mind to flourish when the other kills the soul.
There are many geniuses nowadays, I would argue. But I fear that most of them are too afraid to go against the grain. For the price of humiliation seems higher than it ever was-or so it seems at least.
When you asked if I could think of any geniuses that are alive today, the first people that I thought of were musicians who have in my opinion influenced or creatively improved my favorite genre, in a way that cannot be replicated by others. They created new patterns in an existing network of ideas. But I think that genius is a judgement that arises from looking back and comparing the achievements of different people and how they impacted society. It’s hard to recognize genius when it’s happening.
There are maybe a few cinema geniuses. Scorsese, Tarantino, Cohen brothers, as an example.
I think this gives a clue why there aren’t many geniuses elsewhere, for example why there aren’t more Mozart’s or Bach’s. Even though there are many people educated in formal music from a young age. Movies are just the main public artform that people relate to, and if you think out of the box as a film maker people will understand and care.
With something like understanding reality, we have a split in people that are physicist refusing to think out of the box, or creating an off putting environment for people that do. and then then are people that exclusively think out of the box, and enjoy mysteries, such as psychedelic people and various mystical philosophers, but they are unlikely to engage In physics, because they ether don’t respect it, or don’t feel like their perspective would be respected. And simultaneously don’t feel themselves qualified, after all look at these engineers building space ships and cranes.
This example can answer also the previous example with the music. A tradition based on the works of geniuses gets developed, where it is very intimidating to any individual to try to do something original rather than strictly adhering to the education, this basically describes people studying music, and maybe even physics. This would be remedied by teaching people to make a naive and sincere attempt to have an original thought.
I think alot of people are geniuses in different areas, but society the way the system we’re living under is designed, crushes those different passions and creativity in order to get the individual to produce more output for whatever society wants at the time. So whatever the individual is a genius in, there’s often just no money in that, so sadly they need to give it up most of the time, and maybe get another job or pick up another degree or whatever. They may not be a genius in math or science, but possibly a genius in drawing and making art, a genius in meditation and going into incredibly deep conscious states, a genius in novel writing, a genius in philosophy and studying how reality works. I’m sure theres a TON of people that are geniuses in those areas in todays age, but notice with all those things I mentioned, there’s no money in that sadly, society just doesn’t care for it and only wants to make more widget producers it seems.
In my case, and I say this as non arrogantly as possible, I think I’m a genius in meditation and I mentioned going into very deep conscious states. But guess what, there’s ZERO money in that and requires a lot of time, and I still need to get my other degree (first one was not a good idea). It’s my dream to meditate more and more and to go deeper and deeper, and to see what’s revealed to me what I learn from meditation. Until we change this widget producing culture, people will further decent away from expressing their true potentials, and even worse we could have a collective “giving up” on everything, as we’re already seeing signs of, a lot of people are not even trying anymore. Everyone is different shapes, you can’t try to force everyone to fit in square holes and be geniuses in the same areas.
Awesome video. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.
Thank you for watching my video, and supporting my channel! If you liked the content, feel free to share this video with your friends!
Currently, I'm working toward completing a 350+ paged 4-dimensional spatial geometry book... Between life obligations and a practical menial task job to survive... Without any support, peers, etc...
I've been sitting on quantum gravity and a new realist methodology for 7 years already... Those were 10 years worth of work side by side with each other... The quantum gravity theory was an additional year of chasing my tail and crash coursing into relevant subjects...
I'm assuming the world would consider me a "genius" despite my not acknowledging geniuses even exist... And despite this world essentially attempting to bury me nearly every way imaginable...
The 4-dimensional geometry book will only be my introduction to the world, with far more to follow thereafter...
I should add : 48 years old in New Jersey, USA...
Nice. When do you project this book to be available?
Imagine this: you wasted your time.
@@Self-Dualitynot sure why my first response didn't go through... But...
I'm hoping like 2-5 years... Less time if possible...
@@Sidionian I happen to be very creative... I still can't seem to imagine that, at all... Not sure why I would bother trying to imagine such nonsense , if I'm to be completely honest...
@@marcreiter5675 Unless you have an airtight mathematical formalism that can derive what we currently know, explain what we don't know, and predict what we can know in the future, nobody is going to waste even 1 minute of their time on your 365 page brain fart. Be your own harshest critic instead of deluding yourself into believing you're a genius.
I'm 24. I'm gifted but I'm no genius. I have hypothesized that my generation's access to information, in combination with the nature of intelligibility, has resulted in a more conformant ideology and pedagogy. The matter in which information is presented to us creates the illusion that the divergent pathways that would lead to breakthroughs are intellectually meritless. Another way to put it is that we only recognize paradigm shifting genius, and each paradigm shift is itself a novelty that leads to stagnation, because the merit that made this divergent idea shift the paradigm has now produced a new conformity for the pioneers of that field to converge on
genius is most often appreciated in hindsight. its difficult to observe it in the present.
oh this guy went on to mention my opinion in the video
thanks a lot for the video
JUST FOUND YOUR CHANNEL, lOVED IT, VERY CLEAR THOUGHT PROCESS
Thank you for your comments and your support for my channel!
I think it's also that the system became to complex for individuals to be recognised. The Caravaggios and Michelangelos of today are probably nameless visual artists at a game or film studio. The Einsteins of today are some nameless professors at a university or science centre. The low hanging fruits in physics are already picked up and physics has stagnated (not due a lack of trying, it's just that the remaining problems are way harder). Also in other fields of science its the big teams that make the great breakthroughs and not individuals any more.
An interesting thing in physics: The Double slit experiment. I never believed that old idea about wave interference because it did not make sense, I thought I must be the mad one. I had a very different idea and the individual photon/particle pattern is predicted.
So I am waiting for someone to come up with the same idea. ----> There is still room for thinking.
@@mddell24
Thanks for reply! I unfortunately never looked deeply into The Double slit experiment (I'm a artist).
But I would love to live in a time when groundbreaking discoveries in science are being made again. It could inspire society in fascinating ways and further transform philosophy and culture. Like when Einstein developed his theories of relativity...
While we are living in a time of great change also, I feel that these changes are detrimental on an individual level and negative for our personal growth. I completely agree with you on that point (as you mentioned in your video).
As an artist and filmmaker, it seems to me that we're destined to endlessly replicate the art of our predecessors. Everything feels as if it has already been done. I sense that we are in a prolonged era of cultural and intellectual stagnation, and AI and social media seems to be exacerbating this. Rather than pushing us forward, it feels like it's making things worse in my opinion.
An in-depth and balanced review of what is a very interesting topic. Thank you for the effort that went into the making of this video.
Thank you for viewing and supporting this video! I really appreciate it.
This needs more views!!
Thank you! I really appreciate that! Feel free to share this video with your friends!
38:13 i hate that... "It's all been done"... That... Is... An... Outright... Lie...
great video, thank you!
Thanks for watching my video and supporting my ideas!
Nobody was really a "genius". It's just that our perception of them changes after they die.
That makes zero sense.
@@RuthvenMurgatroyd All the historical geniuses are just regular people who worked hard and were lucky to be in the right circumstances to sharpen their intelligence. And they're mostly not instantly appreciated during their lifetime. Only after we see the results of their work years later that we start to celebrate them.
@@StdDev99 Absolutely not. The reason they are remembered as geniuses is because they had peculiar circumstances (wealth, intelligence, opportunity, etc.) which allowed them to do what they did. It couldn't have been "just anyone". This attitude just ignores the circumstances which lead to these discoveries and such is simply unhelpful.
@@StdDev99 what? lol. you're coping extremely hard. they ARENT just regular people who worked hard and were lucky. you think if you put 100 "blank slate" people in einsteins shoes they would come out the same caliber? do you know what genetics are, or IQ?
They were, or some of them were, really geniuses. But many more who were forgotten also were, and many people today who will never get that recognition or will only get it after death are also geniuses. It's just a matter of definition
Great points all round, could pretty much write a Malcolm Gladwell-esqe NYT bestseller! Crazy times we live in. Negligible productive and artistic merit in the AI scenario is unsettling but also i think, liberating. While most may find nihilistic hedonism enabled by UBI as the only sane conclusion, I believe it will help transcend us towards a post-scarcity ideology for humanity that finds new meaning and purpose, as if there is some expansive one-way ness in the journey of consciousness in the universe
Thank you for your thoughtful and positive comments! It means a lot to me that you think I can turn this speech into a book (and at the level of Malcolm Galdwell, no less!). I will think about that, and I may do so!
I think there are two factors that are generally overlooked:
1. Nowadays, everybody has less time, because even upper middle class people cook/clean/take care of the kids, etc. Men as well. This isn't bad, but it's a thing to consider.
Maybe our genius™ is just busy with their bs job, laundry and doing the dishes.
2. It's not only that there is more to know in each subject (the specialisation factor), but that to legitimately do anything in any one field (and accrue funding), you'd have to get a degree.. Which takes time. Maybe genius™ is out there, knowing everything about most of things, but nobody's listening to them, because they're not an accredited expert™ and can't conduct studies, because nobody funds a jack of all trades. Or in short: modern academia is pretty hostile to actual science. (The art world isn't any better, if we're taking about genius in that field.)
If a master claimed his mastery only a challenge is needed to threaten it.
How do you think Masters are created?
💀
@@Nah_Bohdi ....I don't 🥸💀
It's obvious claiming mastery is what happens. No master was created or any nonsense. So another bloke comes along and proof of their claim is validated and the "title" is given to the persona based on (...). Not some blossoming of a master just some imaginary children's game that adults take way too close to their hearts.
What goes on in your narrative?
All the geniuses must have gone to a far away land of contemplation-where the Wi-Fi is weak, but the thoughts are strong. Or perhaps they're all busy struggling to climb a tree, trying to impress the rest of us.🙃
Yes, I absolutely agree! Often, the weakest Wi-Fi creates the strongest men!
Great video. If you want it to be recommended to more people, I suggest keeping your video titles as short as possible
Oh really!? That is an interesting suggestion. Does keeping the title short help with CZcams SEO?
@@RandyAi2007 yeah so the more concise a title is, while still conveying the relevant topic (or the most inmediately relevant one, if there are multiple topics) of the video, the more likely people are going to gain interest in it. Concise titles help to convey information faster while scrolling, increase a little more intrigue through mild ambiguity, and display more professionalism. A lot of broader videos can succeed with one-word titles, as a single word can convey the video's entire topic. There's a lot of different ways to have fun with this, including memes and abstract titles.
Probably the shortest title I could come up with for this video would be "Why we've run out of geniuses"
@@JacobGrim thank you for your wonderful suggestions! I really appreciate that you took the time to write this out! It means a lot to me!
@@JacobGrim SEO is small compared to Recommending from algorithm
@@GIGADEV690 whatever you say man, I'm just telling him what I see
19:38
57:36 That is really sad. I just remember him being amazed at a 'beautiful play' the computer made. I think maybe the media I watched put a very positive spin on things.
Unfortunately Lee Sedol (the best Go player in the world at the time) retired after being beaten by the artificial intelligence program AlphaGo. I highly recommend that you watch the documentary "AlphaGo" which goes into the match in detail. However, the documentary does not explore the subsequent psychological effects that the defeat had on him.
This is a quote from the Wikipedia page about him:
On 19 November 2019, Lee announced his retirement from professional play, stating that he could never be the top overall player of Go due to the increasing dominance of AI. Lee referred to them as being "an entity that cannot be defeated". In a 2024 New York Times article, Lee said, "losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing." He also offered additional insight behind why he retired, "I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired."
lovely vid!
Thank you!
so beautiful place great building n architecture ❤
'' Why Are There No More Geniuses Today? ''
Im right here bro!!
It's the first option: geniuses aren't being widely recognized. The main reason is that nobody is popularizing and writing about geniuses in a way that portrays them as geniuses anymore. For there to be "geniuses" there need to be people writing books and articles about them , framing them as geniuses. The current cultural zeitgeist actively discourages genius worship, and emphasizes collaboration and equality instead.
Your video was light and entertaining, a welcomed distraction for me. Thank you! What are your thoughts on potential geniuses? I ask because in addition to being referred to as a real-life analogue of Good Will Hunting by my therapist, I am also categorized by her as a “potential genius.” Of course, the only succinct explanation for my anonymity as a statistical impossibility that I have for you is that I have been a very well-kept secret in the professional psychological community of this country for PC reasons. I trust that because of the self-explanatory nature of the reason that I’ve just given you for my counter-intuitive obscurity (in this part of the world), you need no further clarification than that.
Thanks for viewing my video and for your comments! I hope that you'll have the opportunity in life to self-actualize and reach your full potential as a human being, and also contribute to humanity in the most positive way that you can.
Nowadays, pigeons landing in that yard fly off with degrees
Then there is the Black Swan genius.
taking quantum physics as an example, how do you become a relative "genius" when even getting to a base level of understanding of something like quantum mechanics requires one to practically be a genius, how can we expect someone to be a genius when the bar to entry is what would've been considered genius just a few generations ago
Or it could be that we're well on our way to touch the very limit of human comprehension and reasoning. Some concepts or ideas become biologically impossible for the human brain to process.
I’d say theres plenty of geniuses. But if they are truly smart they will have abandoned institutions and either started their own companies and families. A university degree ain't what it used to be, neither are any of the institutions. The internet lets people do their own thing.
With the exception of people who are truly smart but want to be something like a dr or professor to teach others how to be Dr's because obviously you can self study how to be those things and if one is altruistic and gifted I can see them going this path
I think we simply dont have environment to recognize geniuses but rather we as a collective society voluntarily choose to damn them and label them as nerds and uncool like Sheldon Cooper. I think as humanity esp. In America people greatly prefer lower intelligence. Sad but I feel it all the time
I grew up hearing that im one of the most original kids out there and was severely depressed in the school system since i was just told to solve a math problem in the shortest time possible without being creative but following a common path of A to B. Like im not supposed to solve in any other way but only the manner that the teacher/instructor/tutoe has told me.
And i find this phenomenon in Arts and Music too. Think of all the pop music having similar chord progression and BPM
I define genius as someone who can make this video 5 minutes in duration
Hard to watch this and not feel inspired. Excellent video!
Thank you for your comments!!! That means a lot to me. I am grateful that I managed to inspire you!
The problem is not someone feels good, it's whether they can feel more (in a multimodal way, motor awareness, body awareness, intellectual planning, emotional context, visual perception, fear and anger, humor and embarrassment) all these information processing systems have to be engaged and active at the same time, the problem is not feeling out the world in a bunch of different ways (social constraints, and social mirroring, surveillance technology, social interventions enacting constraint). It shuts down brain regions when you have to mirror how people reflect how they feel about you in order to remain socially acceptable (the person giving the most attention, is perceived as being the least valuable, therefore the more expressive you are the more you look out of place). It's more about a society and institutional system that doesn't allow inclusivity, and social economic hierarchies are limiting certain brain activity by using data analytics to drive anger and shut down excitement and fun, destroying the victim overtime and not paying the consequences. Hyper psychiatric dogma also has downward forces by pathologizing every mode of being as something that needs to be constrained, inflicting and reinforcing dogma onto the victims. If we eject the psychiatric dogma, use machine learning to find sustainable technology, there will be no reason to pathologize peoples externalities as mental illness that needs to be constrained, which further shuts down brain activity, and destroys the victim over time (allowing more to be pathologized against, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing). When social media influencers harvest personal data to drive anger, they are doing it such a way as to turn good things into bad things, limiting fun and excitement in favor of finding anyway possible to drive outrage and anger and psychologic pain in their victims over time. Hyper psychiatric dogma and intervention is a moral and optimization relativism that is enforced onto the victim.
I am a genius. I just rather not contribute to the world. Collapse without my participation. Cope and seethe!
I think it’s a marketing problem, the problem is that the fruits are no longer as low hanging so it’s harder to explain to the average person what the hell is going on.
Because people think whoever has a ton of money must be a genius. Lack of morality.
In addition to the 3 mechanisms you discuss, to which I would largely agree, there's a 4th one.
If we focus on science (in art and literature things probably play out different) any epoch blessed by the presence of true groundbreaking geniouses is followed by a long time of dearth and lack thereof.
The cause is the hierarchical nature of scientific knowledge. Science is built upon previous knowledge, which must be fully understood, assimilated and - most importantly - overcome before a new successful paradigm arises.
Historically it has been observed that absolute undisputed, groundbreaking geniouses like Aristotle and Plato were such a startling progress in human thought that >1000 years had to go by before anyone with similar attributes and accomplishment could be born. This would explain the long dark middle ages, where the best thing that humans could do - if they were honest - was to repeat, elaborate and comment on Aristotle's and Platos works. Some would say that the dark period would last till the flourishing of scholasticism in XIII century, (which in some way was a development of the greeks, not a complete break with them).
Others would say that the next time of geniouses did not come until Renaissance, with Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus..
Another observation in support of the theory is that historically, geniouses come up in crops, in tightly bound groups that face boldly the same problems, starting by a full understanding of their predecessors, then overcoming, correcting or extending them.
Notice that Aristotle and Plato were personally related in a small space and time period, and both were inspired by their close predecessor Socrates.
Likewise, the XX century revolution in physics was an explosion led by a small bunch of geniouses like Planck, Heissenberg, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and Einstein, with worthy predecessors in Faraday and Maxwell.
In maths, the same could be said of the XVIII century, with a large crop of genious mathematicians like Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange, Laplace, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, and the Bernoulli brothers. (All of them closely related in Europe, were science was a close-knit milieu with fluid communication among them). Predecessors here would be Descartes and Fermat !
So geniouses are scarce because they can appear only when the work of previous geniouses are fully assimilated and some people can get to challenge and overcome them. And this is hard to come by, usually achieved only in highly inbred groups of smart people that help and support each other to overcome the dominant existing paradigm. Interesting is the constant presence of the 'predecessors', those who understand the prevailing paradign and point in the righr direction to overcome it, but could not complete it successfully for various reasons, mainly due to the huge undertaking they were aiming for.
PS. Another different story is the demographics of smart people. Smart guys and women exist in all places and times, dependent on the size of the group considered, but only a small fraction will achieve a true groundbreaking improvement in received knowledge.
Sorry for the lengthy rants, just a short note on the AI emergence as an end to human creativity and excellence.
I don't agree. AI is both incredibly powerful and amazingly stupid.
To make the point precise, there's no way AI can find out the solution to the problems of dark matter, dark energy, interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity or the problems in current (LCDM) models in cosmology.
NONE of them is going to be solved (or receive a significant boost) from a AI engine.
And at least a couple of them will be sorted out in the coming years by humans.
Wagers accepted !
I actually really like this theory - in that geniuses arise in cohorts, and are in many ways a product of their socio-economic environment. There were certainly more geniuses during the Renaissance than the Dark Ages. Though as food for thought - I wonder if it is the socio-economic environment that creates the geniuses, or if it is the work of these geniuses that creates the socio-economic environment. So if the latter were the case, we would argue that the Renaissance would not have been possible without figures like Dante, Botticelli, Donatello, Raphael, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Michelangelo. Perhaps there is a synergistic relationship between the two.
@@RandyAi2007 Economics plays a role, in that free markets and division of labor generate afluent societies no longer limited to survival labor and barter exchange. It generates specialization, increased productivity, and elite groups with leisure time to devote to science and culture, organized in the form of schools or universities. Aristotle points out that the first scientists arose when a large group of individuals could be liberated from plain survival labor and could engage in 'leisure' activities. He cites the priestly class in ancient Egypt (same could be said of ancient Babylonians or even China).
But social and economic structure, once it has reached a minimum that enables such activities, should not be overstated either. Science has its own internal structure and dynamics. The main factor in developed societies (which in Europe means Greece, Rome and the post-Roman world after Charles the Great and the creation of nation states) is the time it takes to detect and correctly appreciate the inconsistencies, assimilate and improve on the previous paradigm in a consistent way.
It takes time and considerable effort to do so. Precisely because there is a whole theoretical structure built on genious complex theoretical models that must be reformulated. When multiple inconsistencies in the old pradigm appear, a new structure with new foundations is needed. Some assumptions kept, others overturned, and consistency must always be ensured. This is hard and it takes the life and deep thought of multiple people to do so... separated by relatively long periods of uneasyness, bewilderment and quick & false attempts at fixing the problems in its surface (cf epicycles, ether, dark matter, multiworld interpretation of qm, even black holes are such attempts).
Thanks for generous comment.
@@tonibat59 Yes absolutely, I agree that economics plays a role. In that if you're a subsistence farmer, you are very unlikely to have the leisure time to think of great inventions. Although there are some interesting counter-examples in history as well - where inventions were forged out of desperate economic situations. As they say, necessity is the mother of all invention. For example, the invention of the bicycle by Baron Karl von Drais was precipitated by crop failures that led to the death of horses in his community.
Right, but that would be a remarkable technical achievement, not really a new sci. paradigm.
On the other hand, economics and social environment is clearly not enough. I remember now that sophisticated, advanced (for their time) civilizations in pre-Columbus South and Central America who used sophisticated calendars and built large pyramids, did not know a pretty basic technology like the wheel. They never discovered how to pull a cart from an axis and two wheels pinned to it, although they did use rolling cylinders to move weights on them.
BTW, nice jacket and bow tie 😅
Genius has nothing to do with knowledge which is mostly words/maths for most people. I have a friend and I suspect they have a Non-internal-monologue mind. I do not want to ask, I want to decern how others conceive of the world. So words are not important. I rarely use words when solving problems which is why I know Psychology will never solve the mental illness thing. It is not an illness and it is not a mental thing. People used to have "Spontaneous remission" mostly from Depression. And oddly, when "mental illness" people recover without drugs or talk, doctors never want to find out how or why. Not so odd, they stay in the consortium's dogma.
You are right about the decadence factor. The mind rarely solves a problem it has no need to solve.
People no longer draw or doodle because they rarely use pen/pencil. This is a lost skill, it was one of the info outlets for the mind. Tapping buttons or a flat screen does little to trigger neural activity. I have a strong notion that using the hand does much more than playing with ink or piano keys. Have always assumed Leonardo da Vinci started writing: Right-to-Left because he lost the use of his right hand, if you understand.
Not much school till after 10yo and very difficult parents - a good formula for a flexible mind.
There is more geniuses today. The problem is all of the obvious things in mathematics and science have been figured out by previous geniuses. I am a mathematician and I have independently discovered countless theorems as a mathematics student. I do not get credit because someone did it before me 200 years ago. My clever little discovery is utterly meaningless because it was not "original", even though it was. This is why there appears to be less geniuses today. I personally have given up on math research for the reasons mentioned.
To be a mathematician today is to engage in mostly meaningless research. It's sad but true. Perhaps if we get an actual new theory (graph theory being the last big one), I would return! There are many open theories in graph theory, it's just such an ugly theory.
I am basically learning english from your videos and it's really helpful and also the way you show us the background while walking, feels good watching it ( from india)
Thanks for watching my video and for your comments! I'm glad to hear that you're using my video to learn English! I feel very honored!
takes one to know one 👊
There are plenty of living geniuses.
1. Ed Witten
2. Michael Freedman
3. Dennis Sullivan
4. Pierre Deligne
5. Peter Scholze
6. John Tate
I could go on.
the importance of the factor of democracy and other freedoms is questionable because places like China, Russia and Japan exist and have not suffered from a lack of geniuses throughout their history
I would even suggest the opposite - the worse the conditions for existence, the more likely it is that such people will appear
I don't think it's simply about democracy
China has a big population and societal standards imposed by family and government and invasive technologies however they still have a dumb country bc they make buildings out of cheap material that crumble easily from earthquakes.
Russia you could say there are geniuses from here ig I see alot of Russians who love making hard iq tests and love math, I'd say there is more academically inclined people but I wouldn't say there is more geniuses. Not so long ago Bobby Fischer cooked all the Russians even while their cheating in chess.
Japan after the nuke they went into a technological revolution or something and starting making anime to influence Americans to slowly enact their revenge.
I think u have a point about bad conditions bringing out talent but I don't think democracy is inhibiting talent.
The greater the adversity the greater the adaptability the mind will grow. So yep, adversity grew my smarts.
But, genius does not make a comfortable place. So do not feel jealous.
Even in nazi germany, there was no scarcity of genius. Some of them migrared to the US after the war
my question is: does genius only exist if its recognised in a way that eqautes to notoriety (fame or within your field) or commercial success?
Genius capability exists and people are born with it.
But the genius still has to actualize himself if he wants recognition from others.
If he doesn't want recognition from others he can follow his own compass but his self esteem will know his capacity regardless of if people do or don't.
My question is does fame or notoriety and commercial sucess give people the false label of genius. It's easy to create a facade of genius online.
And 2nd question I wonder is recognition of genius by the masses even logical? If they are all average people how will they accurately know what is and what's not genius.
Genius is created by working the mind to do/solve a problem that most believe is impossible.
Some people will resent your genius because they believed it was impossible to solve.
Some people that will benefit will also resent you.
Only a few will willingly and quickly accept.
Most will conclude "well that was easy."
There's no genius. Some problems are simply too difficult.
how do you define a genius
My wife often calls me a genius... sarcastically, of course. Does that count?
your wife is a genius
Yes, I've been thinking about this. Great breakthroughs in human advancement occur when there is great RESISTANCE to creativity. The most common form of resistance is boredom. Faced with boredom, the mind of the genius will create. But with technology, all resistance is being wiped away -- especially boredom. We are constantly entertained by these screens. Therefore, the development of original creativity is slowing. In economics, politics, film, design, novels, fashion, and music. I haven't seen anything shockingly new in 20 years or more. Have you?
Perhaps the true geniuses are amongst the places you will never think to check.
People only become geniuses after they die, and no one can remember how they acted in life.
amazing video, make more like this
Thank you! I am encouraged to make more videos like this in the future!
Thanks for sharing ❤
Thanks for viewing my video!
What do you mean? Every person posting comments on CZcams claims to be a 140 or higher.
Always wondered that, glad im not the only one who thinks it i dont think that many people ponder on this sort of question.. maybe im a genius!!!
2:57 Edward Witten is a genius who is alive right now.
My thought too... When he started calling Stephen Hawking "Stephen Hawkings", I thought, OK, this video is not for me
The guy who invented and programed AI that can beat grand Master chess player or write novel? That's a kind of genius
Do geniuses actually exist? They're usually highly gifted at one or two things. That's all. People are taught poor ways of thinking, that could shrink the number of exceptionally talented and smart people.
we here, just not tryna make the world a better place cuz i’m burnt out
Mathematical systems are actually subjective, since it's dependent on what axioms you subjectively accept to be true, leading to gaps in logical consistency by Godel's theorem (e.g euclidean vs non-euclidean geometry). Therefore genius must also subjective. This implies that AI cannot create works of genius without the perspective of humans. Which means on its own AI cannot create works of genius. A human must be there to at least define it as genius. Maybe humans should start relaxing the axioms they have subjectively accepted to be true to come up with original work that can be considered genius. The permutations are infinite. AI can definitely help with that.
35:07 what you call mnt Everest... I call low hanging fruit...
I think now more than ever people are scared to step out of the norm, for if they do they’ll lose their job and oh no we can’t lose access to money and resources! But the truth is, we’ve only been conditioned to think this way to keep society going and producing. There’s actually a lot of merit and value in stepping out of the system. My hot take is: no one actually needs to work. No one actually needs money. Think about it. Everything is already provided for. Food and water can be accessible. You can build your own shelter and grow your own food and collect your own water. There’s a lot of ways to get by without much, we can even bring in community. My point is, taking a step back makes you realize some risks are worth taking. Following your heart and soul is worth more than becoming soulless. The more souls that step out, the more easier it’ll be for everyone until we’re all doing what we came here to do. To create, to transform, to bring ideas to the world. 🌎
Using scientific progress for your definition is an issue. Can read _The End of Science_ by Horgan to see why we have reached limits by that measure. I can think of many, many geniuses if we mean very smart and making important contributions e.g. David Chalmers, Terence Tao, Elon Musk, John Carmack, Chris Langan, Magnus Carlsen, Andrew Wiles, Tim Berners-Lee... in arts, we have collaborative art with no single contributor such as Cyberpunk 2077, Baldur's Gate 3... in music, there is a lot, but a matter of taste e.g. Zakir Hussain, M.J. Keenan, Da Endorphine, Hans Zimmer. That just comes to mind in a few minutes.
He is from Netherlands
Genius here, I either destroy my work or give it to worthwhile individuals. Socializing substantial breakthroughs indiscriminately is not a wise thing to do.
Why? Because others will take ur ideas use it for evil? Or try to profit off them? Or because the idea is good for the world and things that are good the world can make the government loose profit so they deem u as a threat‽¿
@@ShaunAndYoshi the other day I saw a really beautiful field of flowers with really big sunflowers at the center. The next day I saw people stomping the flowers in order to make their way to the center. The day after that the sunflowers were gone.
@@jsrjsr human nature is cruel. What u said kinda reminds me of tall poppy syndrome don't know if I remember that right. But I wish u luck on finding worthwhile individuals that won't take advantage or attempt to stomp all over your ideas or accomplishments or you for being different.
If there are no sunflowers, we protect people from becoming sunflower violators. So is more about compassion for people than the sunflowers themselves :). if you have time, check mononoke episodes 8-9 ( called nue) . Good luck to you too friend.
@@jsrjsr I wanted to come back to this comment because I was watching a video about Schopenhauer (ps thanks for the anime recommendation)
When I first read ur comment about compassion i felt like you shouldn't have to hide urself to protect others because people should be accepting of each other's gifts and flaws.
But that was idealistc thinking and Schopenhauer explained that when people feel inferior in some way its simply the work of instincts that cause them to behave that way
My idealistic notion isnt pheasable because of instinctive human nature.
Even if ur a humble smart fella your if your existence is percieved as being intellectually superior. Then you would be hated for existing.
But now i understand what you mean by hiding your ability out of compassion for others.
He hasn't met me doe
On your last point. This may be me being optimistic but I believe there will be a segment of humanity which come to deeply appreciate the work of real human artists when AI art becomes commonplace. Especially since there will be no incentive for most people to create real art, so the ones that go through the tough process of creating real art will be appreciated more. We may start seeing writers and artist who take the time to complete full bodies of work like mental Olympians lol.
33:41 what parts of, i have :
- Quantum gravity...
- a new realist methodology...
And...
- 4-dimensional geometry... Thee Pandora's box to any and all higher dimensional geometries...
Did i stutter? 🤔
why do all cranks talk the same?
"I'm this genius working on this big book that is going to change the world, but nobody understands me!"
@@GrifGrey see... That is the funny part... Because, what would truly be the difference between the cranks (which would obviously be in abundant supply), and those non-cranks whom simply slipped through the cracks of society's systems? Or... Are you saying society's systems are so flawless, that such could never happen? Society's systems seem to be designed in such a manner, because there are no actual fail safe systems to acknowledge such possibilities...
@@marcreiter5675 99.9999% of people that say that they've done the impossible, in fact, have not, and I have just seen so many that, frankly, I'm a bit quick to assume that whoever is proclaiming their genius is not one, but if you have done rigorous study, through means of others or your own, go ahead. I do agree with you that our current systems do not nurture genius, and it is possible that you are truly one, but you must sympathize with my skepticism of such a claim.
I wish you luck in your studies and research.
@@GrifGrey fair enough, and agreed... And my judgements will come once the 4-dimensional geometry book is done and placed online... Then, the fun begins... Till then 🌹
49:49 no... AI has it's advantages... But, make no mistake... So do humans...
What is a genius for you?