5 ms·

> … who produce some thing valuable for the community. I think you are cleaning up his values. He clearly seems to be pointing to a few people who produce nove

> … who produce some thing valuable for the community. I think you are cleaning up his values. He clearly seems to be pointing to a few people who produce novel ideas and creations as opposed to the mass of people who never create much of value globally out of their lives. And actually, this statement used to be uncontroversial. Social media and the death of journalism means that our best thinkers no longer have much of a platform. It may be easy to forget and unpopular to remember, but there are some exceptional and brilliant people out there.

ekianjo 3y ago
[flagged]
vkou 3y ago
> And actually, this statement used to be uncontroversial. Indeed. The social value and inherent virtue of kings, high-priests, and robber-barons used to be beyond reproach.
- lapphi 3y ago
  True but in the context of the quote I don’t think Einstein would have viewed them as people that made valuable contributions to society. Probably would have placed them in the former category, honestly.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Einstein was a socialist, so this is likely not to whom he was referring. While undoubtedly an elitist, I’m sure he counted the leaders of industry among the dullards and buffoons. You’d honestly have to be pretty dumb yourself to put them on the same level of his peers in science, like, say, Von Neumann, even though that’s very much the order of the day in modern America.
  - 7thaccount 3y ago
    Reading about Von Neuman is pretty crazy and shows how wide the gap is between people who are only highly intelligent and geniuses like he that made contributions to so many fields.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  And which of those types would you categorize as a person who “contributes something of value to the community”?
- dbtc 3y ago
  We still have our stars.
gardenhedge 3y ago
Surely there is a list of them?
scythe 3y ago
We should also consider that when our perception of things has changed, perhaps it is because the things we are seeing that changed. The average person in Einstein's day received a much inferior education to what schools offer today, and scientific progress was much more rapid. 1939 is only a few years after the end of the era of radioactive quackery, and in the thick of eugenics and "scientific" racism and sexism, while some leading scholars had begun to question this dogma. Fascists and their sympathizers controlled more than a dozen countries, many with significant popular support. Today, the gap between scholars and the public is probably much narrower. This is certainly the case in physics, and I would think in biology and chemistry as well. I believe the only fields where the gap has significantly grown are computer science and pure mathematics, simply due to rapid progress in those fields.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > Today, the gap between scholars and the public is probably much narrower. I would argue the opposite. Each field of study has so much more depth now that on any given topic there is more that a layperson has to learn to be on par. Lay people do tend to be much broader generalists (at least in terms of scientific understanding) than they were in 1939 but they are further behind the specialists.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Doesn't this sub-thread conflate intelligence with knowledge?
- mikebenfield 3y ago
  I think I'll grant that there are more educated and competent people than there used to be. But broadly the gap between scholars and "the public" is as massive at it's ever been. Meet a few members of "the public" socially, outside of tech or academic circles or however you usually meet people. Go to some random bar or club or whatever and make some friends. I think you'll find, like I do, that most people basically don't know anything. They can sort of do 3rd grade arithmetic, but struggle to apply it, and don't know anything else about mathematics - most people don't understand how to use negative numbers or what they're for, for instance. They don't know anything about history - they don't really know what the Renaissance was, or when the Roman Empire was, or when and where human civilization began, or anything else. They absolutely know nothing about physics - they are completely unaware of the idea that acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on mass, which I see as the starting point of teaching physics.
shkkmo 3y ago
> He clearly seems to be pointing to a few people who produce novel ideas and creations as opposed to the mass of people who never create much of value globally out of their lives. The reason why it is clear that this is not what he is doing is the rest of the text. He starts by saying that his time is rich in inventive minds. It doesn't really make sense to assert that a couple of sentences later he is arguing that the reason we have war and poverty is a lack of more inventive minds. For context, remember this statement comes from a time when his homeland is in the grip of the Nazis and WW2 was just beginning. Why would he tell the future that there a smart people and stupid people and the problems are the fault of stupid people? Especially given the ending I read this note with a tone of hopeful despair about our ability to overcome the emergent failings of large groups. So far I'd say he'd probably be disappointed, but we still have 4916 years to figure it out.
dclowd9901 3y ago
Yeah. At first blush, it seems like an unnecessary condemnation, but the comparison here is between those who contribute and those who do not. I believe I fall into the latter of the two, but also know folks who fall into the former. I would say pretty bluntly that they are definitely more intelligent and have better character than I do. Probably by an order of magnitude, were it something quantifiable.
- johndhi 3y ago
  Your humility makes me question your supposedly ill character!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mock-possum 3y ago
Wait why should social media mean less of a platform for our best thinkers? Sure social media provides not only additional platforming, but access to a far broader audience than Einstein could have possibly imagined?
- trey-jones 3y ago
  Social media doesn't allow for well-reasoned discourse. 140 characters generally aren't enough to change the world. And the masses are on social media.
  - mathgeek 3y ago
    Twitter isn’t the breadth of social media.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Even here on HN, there's a strong bias towards shorter messages. Phones, perhaps due to on-screen keyboards, seem to encourage shorter messages than laptops and desktops.
      - codpiece 3y ago
        not true
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- willis936 3y ago
  The signal is 4 orders of magnitude below the noise floor.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    The dynamic range is very wide.
dbtc 3y ago
I think it can be both. The few who stand out do so mostly or entirely because they are separated from mass mentality. Maybe a Chicken and egg sort of thing. And then the quote about the difference between genius and insanity comes to mind. This is the Jungian concept individuation. Can you recommend any brilliant exceptions that come to mind? Especially in journalism.
- wpasc 3y ago
  Ed Witten is uncharacteristically brilliant and yet he (in my opinion) fell prey to the “masses” of physicists who clung to String theory despite its inability to yield results. Imo, that’s a counter example to your point. Thinking differently than other people and outside the masses doesn’t make one smart, take any non Ted Kasinski serial killer
demondemidi 3y ago
I've read several bios on Einstein. There's nothing in any of his correspondence or opinions even remotely close to Ayn Rand's monstrosity called objectivism.

ekianjo 3y ago

[flagged]

vkou 3y ago

> And actually, this statement used to be uncontroversial. Indeed. The social value and inherent virtue of kings, high-priests, and robber-barons used to be beyond reproach.

lapphi 3y ago
True but in the context of the quote I don’t think Einstein would have viewed them as people that made valuable contributions to society. Probably would have placed them in the former category, honestly.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
Einstein was a socialist, so this is likely not to whom he was referring. While undoubtedly an elitist, I’m sure he counted the leaders of industry among the dullards and buffoons. You’d honestly have to be pretty dumb yourself to put them on the same level of his peers in science, like, say, Von Neumann, even though that’s very much the order of the day in modern America.
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  Reading about Von Neuman is pretty crazy and shows how wide the gap is between people who are only highly intelligent and geniuses like he that made contributions to so many fields.
dclowd9901 3y ago
And which of those types would you categorize as a person who “contributes something of value to the community”?
dbtc 3y ago
We still have our stars.

gardenhedge 3y ago

Surely there is a list of them?

scythe 3y ago

We should also consider that when our perception of things has changed, perhaps it is because the things we are seeing that changed. The average person in Einstein's day received a much inferior education to what schools offer today, and scientific progress was much more rapid. 1939 is only a few years after the end of the era of radioactive quackery, and in the thick of eugenics and "scientific" racism and sexism, while some leading scholars had begun to question this dogma. Fascists and their sympathizers controlled more than a dozen countries, many with significant popular support. Today, the gap between scholars and the public is probably much narrower. This is certainly the case in physics, and I would think in biology and chemistry as well. I believe the only fields where the gap has significantly grown are computer science and pure mathematics, simply due to rapid progress in those fields.

shkkmo 3y ago
> Today, the gap between scholars and the public is probably much narrower. I would argue the opposite. Each field of study has so much more depth now that on any given topic there is more that a layperson has to learn to be on par. Lay people do tend to be much broader generalists (at least in terms of scientific understanding) than they were in 1939 but they are further behind the specialists.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Doesn't this sub-thread conflate intelligence with knowledge?
mikebenfield 3y ago
I think I'll grant that there are more educated and competent people than there used to be. But broadly the gap between scholars and "the public" is as massive at it's ever been. Meet a few members of "the public" socially, outside of tech or academic circles or however you usually meet people. Go to some random bar or club or whatever and make some friends. I think you'll find, like I do, that most people basically don't know anything. They can sort of do 3rd grade arithmetic, but struggle to apply it, and don't know anything else about mathematics - most people don't understand how to use negative numbers or what they're for, for instance. They don't know anything about history - they don't really know what the Renaissance was, or when the Roman Empire was, or when and where human civilization began, or anything else. They absolutely know nothing about physics - they are completely unaware of the idea that acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on mass, which I see as the starting point of teaching physics.

shkkmo 3y ago

> He clearly seems to be pointing to a few people who produce novel ideas and creations as opposed to the mass of people who never create much of value globally out of their lives. The reason why it is clear that this is not what he is doing is the rest of the text. He starts by saying that his time is rich in inventive minds. It doesn't really make sense to assert that a couple of sentences later he is arguing that the reason we have war and poverty is a lack of more inventive minds. For context, remember this statement comes from a time when his homeland is in the grip of the Nazis and WW2 was just beginning. Why would he tell the future that there a smart people and stupid people and the problems are the fault of stupid people? Especially given the ending I read this note with a tone of hopeful despair about our ability to overcome the emergent failings of large groups. So far I'd say he'd probably be disappointed, but we still have 4916 years to figure it out.

dclowd9901 3y ago

Yeah. At first blush, it seems like an unnecessary condemnation, but the comparison here is between those who contribute and those who do not. I believe I fall into the latter of the two, but also know folks who fall into the former. I would say pretty bluntly that they are definitely more intelligent and have better character than I do. Probably by an order of magnitude, were it something quantifiable.

johndhi 3y ago
Your humility makes me question your supposedly ill character!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mock-possum 3y ago

Wait why should social media mean less of a platform for our best thinkers? Sure social media provides not only additional platforming, but access to a far broader audience than Einstein could have possibly imagined?

trey-jones 3y ago
Social media doesn't allow for well-reasoned discourse. 140 characters generally aren't enough to change the world. And the masses are on social media.
- mathgeek 3y ago
  Twitter isn’t the breadth of social media.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Even here on HN, there's a strong bias towards shorter messages. Phones, perhaps due to on-screen keyboards, seem to encourage shorter messages than laptops and desktops.
    - codpiece 3y ago
      not true
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
willis936 3y ago
The signal is 4 orders of magnitude below the noise floor.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  The dynamic range is very wide.

dbtc 3y ago

I think it can be both. The few who stand out do so mostly or entirely because they are separated from mass mentality. Maybe a Chicken and egg sort of thing. And then the quote about the difference between genius and insanity comes to mind. This is the Jungian concept individuation. Can you recommend any brilliant exceptions that come to mind? Especially in journalism.

wpasc 3y ago
Ed Witten is uncharacteristically brilliant and yet he (in my opinion) fell prey to the “masses” of physicists who clung to String theory despite its inability to yield results. Imo, that’s a counter example to your point. Thinking differently than other people and outside the masses doesn’t make one smart, take any non Ted Kasinski serial killer

demondemidi 3y ago

I've read several bios on Einstein. There's nothing in any of his correspondence or opinions even remotely close to Ayn Rand's monstrosity called objectivism.