5 ms·

This story is kind of sad. You'd think he would stick with Physics and help advance the species by building an engine to travel to the stars or solving the unif

This story is kind of sad. You'd think he would stick with Physics and help advance the species by building an engine to travel to the stars or solving the unified field theory. But instead he went into the most earth-bound profession imaginable. It makes one think that innovation is less about raw IQ and more about curiosity and passion.

mapleoin 17y ago
Have you seen Good Will Hunting?
- mmaunder 17y ago
  Great movie, but it's about child abuse and recovery.
  - joss82 17y ago
    It's more about life and recovery.
- ynniv 17y ago
  "While I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president." That scene couldn't have done a better job describing our last 10 years in the middle east if it had been written after it happened.
wheels 17y ago
Well, I think it just confirms that there's no strong coupling between intelligence and ambition, but I don't think that's really new information.
ynniv 17y ago
The greatest physicists have been disgusted by society's use of their work. Maybe a modern genius would decide that a small amount of social change would be better than a vast amount of scientific.
fiaz 17y ago
Actually, in a way it is inspiring: he is exercising his own choice to live a life that he loves.
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  I think that's rather selfish. He's squandering his talents and the rest of humanity is worse-off because of it. There are a lot of problems in the world and they're not going to solve themselves. I think exceptional people have a duty to use their talents to aid humanity. I don't mean that everyone with an IQ >120 should drop what they're doing an join OXFAM. The greatest help is usually done through research. Also, people aren't robots with infinite motivation. They have to be interested in their work to perform well. That said, he can probably find something he's interested in that also benefits others.
  - mquander 17y ago
    I think that's an unbelievable remark! Nobody asks in advance to be born intelligent. Can you think of any other trait one could be born with which you would say bestows someone with a duty to lead their life in a certain way? I sure can't. What's next? Millions upon millions of people have obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees in field X, and gone on to a career in field Y. Well, aren't they squandering all their hard-earned experience and knowledge in X? Were they duty-bound to pursue X instead? What's the difference? I also think it's absolutely absurd to say someone's squandering their talents and not "aiding humanity" when they have a Ph.D. in physics, they're a civil engineer, and they've published ninety academic papers.
    - AngryParsley 17y ago
      I guess duty was a poor word choice. Would you agree with this line of reasoning?: The world would be a better place if the most intelligent people worked to solve problems that cause the most harm to humanity. If an exceptionally intelligent person doesn't work on these problems, more people will die and/or suffer. This is bad, so exceptionally intelligent people should work on these problems even if they find more personal satisfaction in less important problems. That's basically what I meant by "duty." Now to address the specific points in your post: Nobody asks in advance to be born intelligent. Correct. Currently life is very very unfair. Nobody asks to be born into poverty and ignorance either. Can you think of any other trait one could be born with which you would say bestows someone with a duty to lead their life in a certain way? These aren't genetic traits but they can be inherited: Wealth. Power, such as in a monarchy. ...aren't they squandering all their hard-earned experience and knowledge in X? There are a couple of differences in your example. First, not all degrees are equally useful. A Ph.D. in Russian literature isn't going to be very useful in curing disease or engineering hardier crops. Second, education can't fully substitute for fluid intelligence. I also think it's absolutely absurd to say someone's squandering their talents and not "aiding humanity" when they have a Ph.D. in physics, they're a civil engineer, and they've published ninety academic papers. Compared to most people, yes, he has helped a lot. But if this guy really is the smartest person on the earth, he is wasting his potential. Bad things are happening -bad things will happen- that wouldn't have happened if he worked in biotech or physics or cognitive neuroscience. Here's a silly but analogous situation: If Superman was a social worker, wouldn't you be frustrated that he wasn't doing superhero stuff? Sure, social worker Superman has helped more than most individuals, but he could do so much more. The fact is that we all aren't born equal, but we all hurt; we get sick; we die. It's completely unfair. We need to fix it. The more great minds we have devoted to these problems, the sooner they'll be in the history books instead of the nightly news.
ubercore 17y ago
I don't think it's sad at all; I find it kind of comforting. This dude's living the life he wants to lead. Good on him for making a decision that was at odds with the expectations everyone seemed to be layering on him.
starkfist 17y ago
Maybe his gigantic IQ helped him to see the limits of his potential contribution to Physics. Related, innovative Civil Engineering is extremely important in densely urban societies like Korea.
scotty79 17y ago
Even highest IQ single man can have is small when compared with capacity of few people combined into a good problem solving process. Two people with IQ 120 can be smarter than one with 210. Not to mention if they all use computers.
- Hexstream 17y ago
  Sorry but I doubt that, given that I'd much rather have a 2.1x programmer than 2 1.2x programmers. But of course that's not necessarily correlated with IQ.
  - scotty79 17y ago
    Your "programmer value quotient" is definitely not IQ. Knowledge and experience acts as IQ multiplier when tackling known class of problems. I think there is a number of 1.2x programmers that you would prefer to hire instead of single 2.1x programmer. For all activities there's a number like that and it's pretty low.
    - waterlesscloud 17y ago
      Depends on the task. There are some tasks any number of lesser programmers won't be able to complete. There are conceptual levels to programming that come into play on certain tasks. Huge numbers of programmers that don't understand those concepts won't be able to solve the problems.
    - scotty79 17y ago
      Science does not rely on geniuses and programming also shouldn't. There is simply too much to do to wait for genius to do it. If your problem is too hard you should rephrase it, break it into easier parts, limit domain to what is necessary and give up some constraints. That's what people do in science and that's what worked for humanity so far.
      - orp 17y ago
        I'm not sure that works when it comes to major breakthroughs. I'm hardly an expert, but I'm not sure Einstien's work, for instance, could be replicated by a 100 physicists 'breaking it into easier parts. Not mention you're contradicting Heinlein, and we all know that's never good.
blhack 17y ago
Maybe he "doesn't want to spend the rest of his life explainin' shit to people".
arethuza 17y ago
Maybe he is smart enough to have decided that a star drive or unifield field theory are not possible and decided to do something else that interests him more.
techiferous 17y ago
"help advance the species by building an engine to travel to the stars or solving the unified field theory" But why? Technology is a means, not an end, so unless we've got our ends right, there's no point pouring all our effort into the means.
vinutheraj 17y ago
"You are not responsible for other people's expectations about you" - Richard Feynman
DaniFong 17y ago
Speaking as an ex-academic physicist, this is pure snobbery! What's wrong with civil engineering?

mapleoin 17y ago

Have you seen Good Will Hunting?

mmaunder 17y ago
Great movie, but it's about child abuse and recovery.
- joss82 17y ago
  It's more about life and recovery.
ynniv 17y ago
"While I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president." That scene couldn't have done a better job describing our last 10 years in the middle east if it had been written after it happened.

wheels 17y ago

Well, I think it just confirms that there's no strong coupling between intelligence and ambition, but I don't think that's really new information.

ynniv 17y ago

The greatest physicists have been disgusted by society's use of their work. Maybe a modern genius would decide that a small amount of social change would be better than a vast amount of scientific.

fiaz 17y ago

Actually, in a way it is inspiring: he is exercising his own choice to live a life that he loves.

AngryParsley 17y ago
I think that's rather selfish. He's squandering his talents and the rest of humanity is worse-off because of it. There are a lot of problems in the world and they're not going to solve themselves. I think exceptional people have a duty to use their talents to aid humanity. I don't mean that everyone with an IQ >120 should drop what they're doing an join OXFAM. The greatest help is usually done through research. Also, people aren't robots with infinite motivation. They have to be interested in their work to perform well. That said, he can probably find something he's interested in that also benefits others.
- mquander 17y ago
  I think that's an unbelievable remark! Nobody asks in advance to be born intelligent. Can you think of any other trait one could be born with which you would say bestows someone with a duty to lead their life in a certain way? I sure can't. What's next? Millions upon millions of people have obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees in field X, and gone on to a career in field Y. Well, aren't they squandering all their hard-earned experience and knowledge in X? Were they duty-bound to pursue X instead? What's the difference? I also think it's absolutely absurd to say someone's squandering their talents and not "aiding humanity" when they have a Ph.D. in physics, they're a civil engineer, and they've published ninety academic papers.
  - AngryParsley 17y ago
    I guess duty was a poor word choice. Would you agree with this line of reasoning?: The world would be a better place if the most intelligent people worked to solve problems that cause the most harm to humanity. If an exceptionally intelligent person doesn't work on these problems, more people will die and/or suffer. This is bad, so exceptionally intelligent people should work on these problems even if they find more personal satisfaction in less important problems. That's basically what I meant by "duty." Now to address the specific points in your post: Nobody asks in advance to be born intelligent. Correct. Currently life is very very unfair. Nobody asks to be born into poverty and ignorance either. Can you think of any other trait one could be born with which you would say bestows someone with a duty to lead their life in a certain way? These aren't genetic traits but they can be inherited: Wealth. Power, such as in a monarchy. ...aren't they squandering all their hard-earned experience and knowledge in X? There are a couple of differences in your example. First, not all degrees are equally useful. A Ph.D. in Russian literature isn't going to be very useful in curing disease or engineering hardier crops. Second, education can't fully substitute for fluid intelligence. I also think it's absolutely absurd to say someone's squandering their talents and not "aiding humanity" when they have a Ph.D. in physics, they're a civil engineer, and they've published ninety academic papers. Compared to most people, yes, he has helped a lot. But if this guy really is the smartest person on the earth, he is wasting his potential. Bad things are happening -bad things will happen- that wouldn't have happened if he worked in biotech or physics or cognitive neuroscience. Here's a silly but analogous situation: If Superman was a social worker, wouldn't you be frustrated that he wasn't doing superhero stuff? Sure, social worker Superman has helped more than most individuals, but he could do so much more. The fact is that we all aren't born equal, but we all hurt; we get sick; we die. It's completely unfair. We need to fix it. The more great minds we have devoted to these problems, the sooner they'll be in the history books instead of the nightly news.

ubercore 17y ago

I don't think it's sad at all; I find it kind of comforting. This dude's living the life he wants to lead. Good on him for making a decision that was at odds with the expectations everyone seemed to be layering on him.

starkfist 17y ago

Maybe his gigantic IQ helped him to see the limits of his potential contribution to Physics. Related, innovative Civil Engineering is extremely important in densely urban societies like Korea.

scotty79 17y ago

Even highest IQ single man can have is small when compared with capacity of few people combined into a good problem solving process. Two people with IQ 120 can be smarter than one with 210. Not to mention if they all use computers.

Hexstream 17y ago
Sorry but I doubt that, given that I'd much rather have a 2.1x programmer than 2 1.2x programmers. But of course that's not necessarily correlated with IQ.
- scotty79 17y ago
  Your "programmer value quotient" is definitely not IQ. Knowledge and experience acts as IQ multiplier when tackling known class of problems. I think there is a number of 1.2x programmers that you would prefer to hire instead of single 2.1x programmer. For all activities there's a number like that and it's pretty low.
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    Depends on the task. There are some tasks any number of lesser programmers won't be able to complete. There are conceptual levels to programming that come into play on certain tasks. Huge numbers of programmers that don't understand those concepts won't be able to solve the problems.
  - scotty79 17y ago
    Science does not rely on geniuses and programming also shouldn't. There is simply too much to do to wait for genius to do it. If your problem is too hard you should rephrase it, break it into easier parts, limit domain to what is necessary and give up some constraints. That's what people do in science and that's what worked for humanity so far.
    - orp 17y ago
      I'm not sure that works when it comes to major breakthroughs. I'm hardly an expert, but I'm not sure Einstien's work, for instance, could be replicated by a 100 physicists 'breaking it into easier parts. Not mention you're contradicting Heinlein, and we all know that's never good.

blhack 17y ago

Maybe he "doesn't want to spend the rest of his life explainin' shit to people".

arethuza 17y ago

Maybe he is smart enough to have decided that a star drive or unifield field theory are not possible and decided to do something else that interests him more.

techiferous 17y ago

"help advance the species by building an engine to travel to the stars or solving the unified field theory" But why? Technology is a means, not an end, so unless we've got our ends right, there's no point pouring all our effort into the means.

vinutheraj 17y ago

"You are not responsible for other people's expectations about you" - Richard Feynman

DaniFong 17y ago

Speaking as an ex-academic physicist, this is pure snobbery! What's wrong with civil engineering?