This will come across as harsh, but that isn't my intention. My intent is to explore ideas, so I apologize in advance. Are your friends aware that scientific

This will come across as harsh, but that isn't my intention. My intent is to explore ideas, so I apologize in advance. Are your friends aware that scientific breakthroughs have not typically come with rewards to the observer/identifier/mathematician? If so, they likely selected for a role that benefits the other humans but not themselves; if not, perhaps they are unrealistic about expectations as a thinker. We all seem to love new thinkers so much, but telling people what they've built is incorrect has rarely been personally profitable. Outside of the maths/sciences, hell, they freaking crucified Jesus for his social policies. The entire structure of human civilization suggests its unprofitable to tell people they're wrong. It requires that wrongness to "create new paradigms". People who buy into the system are unlikely to overturn it, so the complaints become less "they dont like me for my ideas because they're recolutionary" and more "they don't like me because my ideas aren't as mainstream as theirs". If your metric is the latter, can you help me understand what the problem is?