3 ms·
Apart from possibly Ken, none of them compares IMO to the Princeton list, not by a long-shot. I often wonder why there seems to be less scientific genius around
by ced 20y ago
Apart from possibly Ken, none of them compares IMO to the Princeton list, not by a long-shot. I often wonder why there seems to be less scientific genius around, and there are three options:
1. Problems these days require teams (meh)
2. The geniuses are there, they just never get recognition until much later
3. They're off doing technical work rather than scientific research. I.e.: they do startups, not publish articles. Can you imagine that your project might be up against a modern-day Einstein?
4. I'm out of touch. Geniuses are still there, in plain sight.
- imp 20y agoI've thought the same thing myself and I usually assume that it's a combination of #2/#4. The geniuses are out there, and those who work directly with them know that they're geniuses, but they won't get wide-spread recognition until much later. Probably because they're working on ideas that won't (can't) be implemented until much later. Actually, it might be that there are many groups of geniuses out there, but only those whose work ends up being useful (depending on random future events) are later regarded as geniuses. Like the article said, the demand for computers didn't really increase until WWII.