if only women wrote religion

Originally posted by inimalist
Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...

Einstein... no. I'm not going to say he is in the class of "super amazing genius". This could even be said of Newton to some degree, but in both cases, they merely articulated what was "on the tip of everyone's tongue" at the time. I have a lot of problems with looking at individual scientists and saying "look at how smart they are", as if science can ever be an individual accomplishment.

Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.

Here, [b]not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.[/B]

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah but genius isn't really measured simply by amount of knowledge possessed... Actually Einstein was more of a genius than people with greater knowledge, it takes much more genius to create or discover an idea than to learn about an already existing one... which is why those are considered "the top people" in your field, and you are not.

i can't argue with any of that

Originally posted by inimalist
Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.

Einstein invented a new kind of refrigerator when he was 47! While he didn't like quantum mechanics he did come up with what turned into an important proof of its truth in his fifties.

And SMBC raises a good point about that belief in general.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1833#comic

Originally posted by inimalist
Here, [b]not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.[/B]

To his credit Newton was very upfront about where his work came from.

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

There is always, however, the question of what it means to be a genius. I'm fond of "intellectual creativity", if you follow my meaning, over sheer amazed knowledge (otherwise my computer is a genius).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Einstein invented a new kind of refrigerator when he was 47! While he didn't like quantum mechanics he did come up with what turned into an important proof of its truth in his fifties.

huh, didn't know either of those

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And SMBC raises a good point about that belief in general.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1833#comic

I said 35 😛

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To his credit Newton was very upfront about where his work came from.

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

most good scientists are. Maybe I was more expressing distaste with the way culture looks at these people, than with how they understand themselves. I can't imagine Einstein thought himself to be God's gift to physics.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is always, however, the question of what it means to be a genius. I'm fond of "intellectual creativity", if you follow my meaning, over sheer amazed knowledge (otherwise my computer is a genius).

there is a point where the two have to meet though. I'm sure you know the creative types who have an opinion about absolutly everything, even though they have no knowledge of it. Like a friend of mine trying to argue that poetry is a science, not metaphorically, but it is the same thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...

Einstein... no. I'm not going to say he is in the class of "super amazing genius". This could even be said of Newton to some degree, but in both cases, they merely articulated what was "on the tip of everyone's tongue" at the time. I have a lot of problems with looking at individual scientists and saying "look at how smart they are", as if science can ever be an individual accomplishment.

Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.

Here, [b]not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.
[/B]

Now I don't know exactly whether you are arguing this in relation to the women thing Mindship said, but I think you are severely underestimating the abilities of those considered the greatest by socety, I'd say pretty much all of them (at least in the natural sciences) were amazing geniuses, definitely at the far end of the bell curve. Einstein in particular was influential throughout his life, you are correct that he revolutionized the field by 35, but he did a lot of important work after as well. I'd say especially the famous Mathematicians were exceptional...but so were many of the artists and philosophers.

I agree with your point to a certain degree, you have to be lucky, and you you always build on what people knew before you, but that's really not enough, you also have to be in that .1 or .01 (or less percent of people able to understand (and much, much harder contribute to)the heights of scientific pursuit in your time.

It may be true that a first year can now understand some of the theories Descartes or Gauss created, but that's a whole different thing from finding them out of nothing. Especially with people like Descartes, the field basically stagnated for a thousand years, so it wasn't some "it's time to find new things" thing, it was an enormous achievement from one single person.

Though in fact I believe that most of the Nobel Laureates achieved what they got the Nobel Prize after their 30s (I think I read an article about how they in fact got even older on average in the last decades)

Originally posted by inimalist
[b]not to compare myself to Einstein[/B]

(Thats cool about the special ed courses though, well, not cool, but interesting. I've got a sort of pet theory about boys with problems being ignored by the system because of the push for "equal class time" [god, this sounds terrible without me expanding it]. Are these kids potentially of that type, or are they really just the low end of the bell curve?)

Einstein's first wife was brilliant, herself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with your point to a certain degree, you have to be lucky, and you you always build on what people knew before you, but that's really not enough, you also have to be in that .1 or .01 (or less percent of people able to understand (and much, much harder contribute to)the heights of scientific pursuit in your time.

I actually think it is this attitude that prevents a great number of people from achieving. We look at geniuses as if it is a quality that they possess, not as if they haven't had to work at it their whole life, or that they aren't a product of an enriching environment. I don't believe it is .1 of the population that can understand complex things, look at the popularity of crap like Lost or conspiracy theories that require huge logical connections to make understandable. If people want to understand something, they are certainly able to.

I tend to think people just aren't motivated for it. Not that they are lazy, its a cultural thing. I remember being a kid and not wanting to be a "brainer" because it would make me stand out in the class, and passing up any chances I had at enrichment classes for that reason.

People are far more intelligent than they give themselves credit for. Does everyone have the capacity to revolutionize physics? no, of course not, does everyone have the ability to think creatively and apply their intelligence? sure, we are just taught not to do that. God, immagine how terrible a 9th/10th grade class would be if kids were taught to apply their knowedge and challange things in creative ways. Yes, if there is one conspiracy I believe in, the education system is deliberately designed to stifle your child's intellectual maturation. Not out of malevolance, but out of necessity. Nobody would be a teacher if it meant dealing with 16 year olds who knew how to express themselves intelligently.

on topic though, ya, fair enough, Einstein might have been a bad choice, but like sym posted, shoulders of giants.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It may be true that a first year can now understand some of the theories Descartes or Gauss created, but that's a whole different thing from finding them out of nothing. Especially with people like Descartes, the field basically stagnated for a thousand years, so it wasn't some "it's time to find new things" thing, it was an enormous achievement from one single person.

stagnated for 1000 years before descartes? maybe in Europe... err, Christian Europe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though in fact I believe that most of the Nobel Laureates achieved what they got the Nobel Prize after their 30s (I think I read an article about how they in fact got even older on average in the last decades)

fascinating. also, encouraging. I only have 9 years before 35... and 3-4 of those I'm still a student doing other people's research, lol!

Originally posted by Mindship
I bet you're at least 1 standard deviation from the norm.

I'd assume that is true of anyone who posts here, but thanks! takes one to know one

Originally posted by Mindship
Combination. But overall, I'd say student motivation is the dominant factor in academic success. Kids who've been ignored can still shine, and even the not-so-smart can make respectable gains.

god, then back to the age old question... how do you motivate kids to learn stuff that they know they will never need (thereby missing the stuff they actually do need)?

Originally posted by inimalist
god, then back to the age old question... how do you motivate kids to learn stuff that they know they will never need (thereby missing the stuff they actually do need)?

Originally posted by Mindship
Once you get to middle school, I don't think the aim of teaching 'all that stuff' is necessarily 'one day you may need it'. It also exposes students to ideas, other perspectives, things they may never otherwise realize they like (as well as dislike); and by high school, students now have more opportunity than ever to go to speciality schools (eg, my main school focuses on automechanics and IT, as well as offering the usual academia). On the other hand, part of adultification is making yourself do what you don't wanna do. This is a lesson that is always valuable, and school is a good place to learn it.

Ask them what would be the least amount of time that you could travel around the Earth (360). the answer would shock most. bc its interesting

women with a high IQ can have EI just as well

Father time : )

Originally posted by inimalist
Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...

Yeah, Mozart would be a good example, probably a better example than most, of what a true genius would be...as far as music goes. At age 5, he wrote his first minuets. By age 9, he had written a complete symphony.

However, and this greatly supports your position, Mozart is a very fine example of a genius being nurtured. His father took great care to instruct him and nurture his gifts. How many "true" geniuses make nothing of themselves due to the circumstances of their environment?

Originally posted by inimalist
As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield.

I actually had to reread your paragraph because I thought you were talking about the i/f field used in quantum physics. 😐 And I was like, "This can't be! What does this mean?" 😆

Originally posted by inimalist
People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.

As a former tutor (voluntary) to 1st and 2nd year physics students, I can tell you:

1. Relativity is not covered in any sort of a graduate level required manner in order to reach Einstein's understanding of relativity.

2. Most of them did not understand relativity, period, at that point.

However, I need to clarify that you are making a good point and I DO get it. I think you were giving first and second year physics students too much credit, though. Of the first or second years, I think it is probably 1% or less that actually understand relativity and closer to .001% that understand on the level that Einstein did because, as fact, it requires a graduate level of understanding to reach that point (I do not think it is until the 4th year that most degree programs start to cover those concepts in detail. Mostly, they mention them, in passing, in their course work and books.)

Originally posted by inimalist
Basically, its not the "maleness" that makes them good at chess, but something else that only comes with male genetics.

That....makes...no sense. It must be because you are equating "maleness" to a sociological construct rather than a genetic one and I am equating "maleness" to "male genetics."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because they have no other choice; they have to. Women bosses who don't act like men quickly find that their employees start to walk all over them. Less than 5% of all CEO's in the US are women, and even women in lower level mangement are still fish out of water.

I've had several women bosses in the past, and they've all told me things along those lines. They basically have to conform to the business world which was made by men, for men.

How would a female world be any different, though? If you were to take the premise of the thread, and apply it all the way through 3-4000 years of human progression, where would we be? The business world and how it is run can partially attribute it's state to religion. Religion has had a profound and deep influence over many of the things we consider our norms.

What does your female world look like? Throw out the notion of this "male" society and make it matriarchal. How do business and government practices differ?

Originally posted by alltoomany
Ask them what would be the least amount of time that you could travel around the Earth (360). the answer would shock most. bc its interesting

So, what do they say?

Originally posted by alltoomany
women with a high IQ can have EI just as well

As for EI: I find the term a misnomer. I think it's more accurate to call one 'subject-object' intelligence (understanding the inanimate world, as is covered, eg, by physics), and the other 'subject-subject' intelligence (understanding the human world, eg, psychology).

Originally posted by alltoomany
Father time : )

Originally posted by Mindship
Sooner or later, he moves most of us from one end of the Bell curve to the other.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As a former tutor (voluntary) to 1st and 2nd year physics students, I can tell you:

1. Relativity is not covered in any sort of a graduate level required manner in order to reach Einstein's understanding of relativity.

2. Most of them did not understand relativity, period, at that point.

However, I need to clarify that you are making a good point and I DO get it. I think you were giving first and second year physics students too much credit, though. Of the first or second years, I think it is probably 1% or less that actually understand relativity and closer to .001% that understand on the level that Einstein did because, as fact, it requires a graduate level of understanding to reach that point (I do not think it is until the 4th year that most degree programs start to cover those concepts in detail. Mostly, they mention them, in passing, in their course work and books.)

see, I was only making arguements here that I had seen others make, so maybe the lesson is "stick to what you know inimalist, or be made a fool"

so, in that light, coming out of a 2nd year course on perception, I understand more about psychophysics than did Fechner or Wundt.

it just doesn't have the same ring though...

Originally posted by dadudemon
That....makes...no sense. It must be because you are equating "maleness" to a sociological construct rather than a genetic one and I am equating "maleness" to "male genetics."

no, we can even talk genetically, but I mean more in a behavioural sense. The differences between these men's spatial abilities and what not and women is the same as the difference beween their abilities and that of all other males who don't fall into that category. Them being male, sure, might be a prerequisite of this ability, but being male really has no part in that ability.

Its the all X are Y, not all Y are X thing.

Originally posted by Mindship
Once you get to middle school, I don't think the aim of teaching 'all that stuff' is necessarily 'one day you may need it'. It also exposes students to ideas, other perspectives, things they may never otherwise realize they like (as well as dislike); and by high school, students now have more opportunity than ever to go to speciality schools (eg, my main school focuses on automechanics and IT, as well as offering the usual academia). On the other hand, part of adultification is making yourself do what you don't wanna do. This is a lesson that is always valuable, and school is a good place to learn it.

thats true, but you need kids who are open to these things, who think new knowledge is relevant to their life.

The best example of what I'm talking about would be my friends from Ontario. Few graduated highschool the first time around (they have since, which is awesome). The most common reason was that it was more relevant for them to work and make money, given they didn't have the financial means to continue education anyways.

I think we are making the same point, ultimately, but I just don't see it as a child's responsibility to motivate themselves to learn. If a child isn't engaged by the educational establishment, it is a fault of the institution, not the child, imho.

Originally posted by inimalist

so, in that light, coming out of a 2nd year course on perception, I understand more about psychophysics than did Fechner or Wundt.

it just doesn't have the same ring though...

That's because we are talking about real subjects 😛

Originally posted by inimalist
I think we are making the same point, ultimately, but I just don't see it as a child's responsibility to motivate themselves to learn. If a child isn't engaged by the educational establishment, it is a fault of the institution, not the child, imho.

Originally posted by Mindship
To an extent, yes, and certainly the younger the child, the more the onus falls on the school (and parents) to motivate that child. But by the time you get to high school, the student is now very much a participant in the shaping of their future. They can understand responsibility and consequence (both short- and long-term). If a student finds academia "boring," it is up to student, teacher and parent (yes, in that order, working closely together), to explore other options (eg, work).

well, if the system fails to engage them in grade 2, what likelihood is there that the student will be open to it in grade 9?

I do agree, the onus falls on them, but I don't think the solution lies in them "picking themselves up by the bootstraps", but rather refocusing early education on getting students motivated and interested in learning, and showing them how knowing things can be fundamentally practical and worthwhile in and of itself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's because we are talking about real subjects 😛

less real than quantum physics? gfah!

Originally posted by inimalist
well, if the system fails to engage them in grade 2, what likelihood is there that the student will be open to it in grade 9?

I do agree, the onus falls on them, but I don't think the solution lies in them "picking themselves up by the bootstraps", but rather refocusing early education on getting students motivated and interested in learning, and showing them how knowing things can be fundamentally practical and worthwhile in and of itself.

*At least the public/parents are finally catching on to this. Today in one paper, on page 2, was a terrific article on how the NYC Dept of Ed has been setting schools up for failure (something teachers have known for years now). The public school system is literally under attack by a businessman-dictator in mayoral clothing and his bottom line, legacy-first priorities.

There's a lot going down, and I don't wanna go off on another rant. Here's part of what I posted in another thread a while back...

Originally posted by Mindship
The problem is that the Powers That Be are politicians / businessmen / lawyers who know nothing about what goes on in a classroom; they surround themselves with former educators who've become multi-six-figure-salary yesmen; and they pursue Ivory Tower objectives to compensate for a society high on lip-service about how important education is but low on actual value with regard to money, time, energy and occupational esteem (eg, what would you rather be: a baseball player or a teacher?).

Further, because the "business model" is being pushed (after all, educating a human being is like manufacturing bottles of soda: the product itself has, of course, no input [read: no responsibility] regarding its own outcome), students quickly get the message that if they fail, it's always the teachers' fault, so why bother doing any real work. Consequently, more kids fail and more tests have to be watered down or grades fudged, otherwise the Powers That Be say, "Your school failed--we're shutting you down," so they can make room for charter schools which virtually pick and choose who they're going to educate (avoiding as best they can the special ed / low achiever / behavior problem crowd).

In effect, there is a war on against public education to hide society's shortsightedness and ass-backwards values when it comes to preparing for the future (the long-term consequences are already becoming apparent: witness the rise in remedial classes in colleges). It's a war--it's a con game!--and one of its greatest perpertrators is the Emperor, er, Mayor of NYC, to whom a judge finally said, If you're going to close schools, do it legally and for good reason, not after you've set the system up for failure.

a group of 17 year old boys said that if women wrote religion. the whole human race would be smarter and much more carring, because they said that they feel that thier mothers love them the most..