6 ms·

Could you also possibly be projecting your values on to Einstein? There is a tendency to modernize or whitewash the views of heroes of the past so they pass mu

Could you also possibly be projecting your values on to Einstein? There is a tendency to modernize or whitewash the views of heroes of the past so they pass muster today. A generation ago we had far less reticence to categorize and rank people, for better and for worse. I don’t know enough about Einstein to have a strong opinion here so this is a question more than rebuttal. Does he normally write in loose metaphor or is he generally straight to the point?

martincmartin 3y ago
Keep in mind that Einstein was a German Jew, and 1939 was after Hitler had come to power, passed all sorts of extreme anti-Jewish laws, and then started World War II. So it's a fair bet this is really about "how could so many people vote for and support Nazis?"
- kvetching 3y ago
  This is a good video for answering that question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830fVdBYJzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830fVdBYJzc
john-radio 3y ago
I don't know whether Einstein meant "the intelligent few are more intelligent than the masses, collectively" or "individually," but it's not fair for you to say that one reading is "loose metaphor" while the other is completely straightforward; either interpretation is sensible.
- kspacewalk2 3y ago
  One is completely straightforward whereas the other is ambiguous. Only one interpretation is sensible without making a big assumption about the author's views.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Your “straightforward interpretation” hinges of what he means by “produce some thing valuable for the community.” Did he mean valuable things like bread, or only extreme value like electrodynamics? Well he didn’t say “extreme value” and it’s easy to argue the character of productive members of society is above that of pickpockets so that fits. So IMO a straightforward interpretation would be calling the great masses of humanity dumb rather than extolling the virtues of bakers.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      In the lines before he mentioned flying and electric waves, so I think he means that. Bread would fall under commodities. There is really only one way to read his message. Which is a good thing, given that it is intended to be transmitted across 5000 years.
      - Retric 3y ago
        He calls out the lack of commodities as a problem to be addressed, unlike flying and radio which are suggested to be solved problems. “everybody must live in fear of being eliminated from the economic cycle” not fear of failing to create the next wonder. Thus emphasizing the critical nature of workers. It’s easy to read as pro social safety net or event collectivist terms. But stating a problem alone doesn’t suggest a solution.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        > There is really only one way to read his message. This thread is a clear indicator that ther are multiple ways to read it. One may seem more valid than others but it's not at all unambiguous. I'd love to know what the people in 5000 years, if there are any, project onto this. Maybe they'll refer back to this thread and fall into two major camps.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  I don’t understand why the distinction matters? The intelligent few will produce more novel ideas, combined or individually, than the masses. Whom by definition produce nothing (at least nothing novel).
  - epups 3y ago
    I think the distinction is that one interpretation is arguing that "truth by committee" is usually wrong, while the other is arguing for an elitist view where some people just carry all the weight.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Technically, defining something as being true only sometimes makes it true in fact ("All bachelors are unmarried", for example), in other cases (like this one) it only causes it to appear true...but then, if one considers the theory that reality is equal to people's perception of it, it is usually a moot distinction ...but not always.
trey-jones 3y ago
To answer your question - "yes" I definitely could be projecting my own values. Just as everyone else reading it another way could be projecting their own. We all have our biases. I do recognize that. I'm also not beholden to the language used (incomparably). To me that reinforces my interpretation, but of course often the interpreters can assign more meaning to a word than the author intended. I'm not saying mine is the right answer, but I definitely think it is an answer.
georgeplusplus 3y ago
Einsteins time period was the golden era of libertarianism and individualism were more mainstream especially during WW1, so it doesn't come to me as surprising that Einstein would write something like that. The famous books of that era have many central themes and elements of individualism from authors such as Orwell, Tolkien, Huxley.
- panarchy 3y ago
  Einstein's time period was also one critical of fascism with one of the points of discussion from then on that was talking about how large masses of people can turn into horrible unintelligible creatures that lead to the likes of the holocaust.
- jakeinspace 3y ago
  Sure but Einstein was a socialist.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    I love how to vote or rail against socialism is, in some sense, to say "Nah, Einstein don't know shit, surely I'm smarter than that man." Also don't call me "Surely" Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist? Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously?
    - flextheruler 3y ago
      Yes it was a racial socialism as opposed to class socialism.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Einstein didn't have the 20th century as reference. > Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist? Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously? They're both high authoritarian societies. Nazis were just for murder along geographic and racial boundaries rather than class boundaries.
usefulcat 3y ago
> Could you also possibly be projecting your values on to Einstein? I think this misses the forest for the trees. IMO, even if the GPs interpretation is wrong, it's still a far more interesting and insightful observation (that groups so often behave so much worse than individuals) than the alternative (some people are a lot smarter than others).
- _factor 3y ago
  It’s ok to be wrong and insightful. It’s not ok to attribute it incorrectly.
arde 3y ago
The collective "intelligence and character of the masses" was a topic of the highest relevance back in 1939, particularly to a Jew like Einstein, while the average of its individuals less so (and of more interest to the racist ideologies he opposed). And this is not a metaphor: it is literally what is said in the note. On the contrary, it's a stretch to interpret it as a reference to the individuals in the masses instead of the masses themselves.

martincmartin 3y ago

Keep in mind that Einstein was a German Jew, and 1939 was after Hitler had come to power, passed all sorts of extreme anti-Jewish laws, and then started World War II. So it's a fair bet this is really about "how could so many people vote for and support Nazis?"

kvetching 3y ago
This is a good video for answering that question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830fVdBYJzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830fVdBYJzc

john-radio 3y ago

I don't know whether Einstein meant "the intelligent few are more intelligent than the masses, collectively" or "individually," but it's not fair for you to say that one reading is "loose metaphor" while the other is completely straightforward; either interpretation is sensible.

kspacewalk2 3y ago
One is completely straightforward whereas the other is ambiguous. Only one interpretation is sensible without making a big assumption about the author's views.
- Retric 3y ago
  Your “straightforward interpretation” hinges of what he means by “produce some thing valuable for the community.” Did he mean valuable things like bread, or only extreme value like electrodynamics? Well he didn’t say “extreme value” and it’s easy to argue the character of productive members of society is above that of pickpockets so that fits. So IMO a straightforward interpretation would be calling the great masses of humanity dumb rather than extolling the virtues of bakers.
  - auggierose 3y ago
    In the lines before he mentioned flying and electric waves, so I think he means that. Bread would fall under commodities. There is really only one way to read his message. Which is a good thing, given that it is intended to be transmitted across 5000 years.
    - Retric 3y ago
      He calls out the lack of commodities as a problem to be addressed, unlike flying and radio which are suggested to be solved problems. “everybody must live in fear of being eliminated from the economic cycle” not fear of failing to create the next wonder. Thus emphasizing the critical nature of workers. It’s easy to read as pro social safety net or event collectivist terms. But stating a problem alone doesn’t suggest a solution.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      > There is really only one way to read his message. This thread is a clear indicator that ther are multiple ways to read it. One may seem more valid than others but it's not at all unambiguous. I'd love to know what the people in 5000 years, if there are any, project onto this. Maybe they'll refer back to this thread and fall into two major camps.
Aeolun 3y ago
I don’t understand why the distinction matters? The intelligent few will produce more novel ideas, combined or individually, than the masses. Whom by definition produce nothing (at least nothing novel).
- epups 3y ago
  I think the distinction is that one interpretation is arguing that "truth by committee" is usually wrong, while the other is arguing for an elitist view where some people just carry all the weight.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Technically, defining something as being true only sometimes makes it true in fact ("All bachelors are unmarried", for example), in other cases (like this one) it only causes it to appear true...but then, if one considers the theory that reality is equal to people's perception of it, it is usually a moot distinction ...but not always.

trey-jones 3y ago

To answer your question - "yes" I definitely could be projecting my own values. Just as everyone else reading it another way could be projecting their own. We all have our biases. I do recognize that. I'm also not beholden to the language used (incomparably). To me that reinforces my interpretation, but of course often the interpreters can assign more meaning to a word than the author intended. I'm not saying mine is the right answer, but I definitely think it is an answer.

georgeplusplus 3y ago

Einsteins time period was the golden era of libertarianism and individualism were more mainstream especially during WW1, so it doesn't come to me as surprising that Einstein would write something like that. The famous books of that era have many central themes and elements of individualism from authors such as Orwell, Tolkien, Huxley.

panarchy 3y ago
Einstein's time period was also one critical of fascism with one of the points of discussion from then on that was talking about how large masses of people can turn into horrible unintelligible creatures that lead to the likes of the holocaust.
jakeinspace 3y ago
Sure but Einstein was a socialist.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  I love how to vote or rail against socialism is, in some sense, to say "Nah, Einstein don't know shit, surely I'm smarter than that man." Also don't call me "Surely" Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist? Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously?
  - flextheruler 3y ago
    Yes it was a racial socialism as opposed to class socialism.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Einstein didn't have the 20th century as reference. > Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist? Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously? They're both high authoritarian societies. Nazis were just for murder along geographic and racial boundaries rather than class boundaries.

usefulcat 3y ago

> Could you also possibly be projecting your values on to Einstein? I think this misses the forest for the trees. IMO, even if the GPs interpretation is wrong, it's still a far more interesting and insightful observation (that groups so often behave so much worse than individuals) than the alternative (some people are a lot smarter than others).

_factor 3y ago
It’s ok to be wrong and insightful. It’s not ok to attribute it incorrectly.

arde 3y ago

The collective "intelligence and character of the masses" was a topic of the highest relevance back in 1939, particularly to a Jew like Einstein, while the average of its individuals less so (and of more interest to the racist ideologies he opposed). And this is not a metaphor: it is literally what is said in the note. On the contrary, it's a stretch to interpret it as a reference to the individuals in the masses instead of the masses themselves.