6 ms·

Stephen Jay Gould said: "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talen

• istjohn 2y ago
  I wonder. I'm against wealth inequality, but for thousands of years, the human labor required to feed, clothe, and shelter a family wouldn't have allowed anyone to learn, preserve, and advance human knowledge without the labor of many being exploited one way or another by an elite few. That's not to justify anything or argue against egalitarianism today.
  • District5524 2y ago
    A great point! I beleive today the main problem is no longer the amount of human labor needed to feed or clothe, but to have access to those universities/labs/companies that have the necessary resources to enable meaningful research that humanity values. Costs of creating food and clothe have plummeted - this is good from any possible point of view, and clearly shows we do no longer "need" inequlity from these perspectives. However, access to human institutions does not follow the same democratization and pricefall. In several fields (space, medical and material sciences), advances we yearn for require lots of capital/military power. In many fields, innovations are tied to huge amounts of money to be spent (mostly accessible only in one particular capital market of the world). But even in "cheaper" fields (like mathematics, economics etc.) simply being heard requires working in prestiguous universities. And many of those have no choice but to select and hire people based on their previous work or their financial capabilities. Thus, reinforcing the same stratification as we've seen with food and clothing, and slowing the process of finding the right bright minds to do what they excel at in greater numbers. It's quite unlikely we will solve any major part of this social problem before 2086 (or any projected population peak)... People seem to be still stuck in celebrity culture in politics and everywhere.
    • simpaticoder 2y ago
      It's hard to differentiate between transients and steady-state on a short time-line. The "research factory" model, I believe, is a transient, at least in physics, sustained by the low-hanging fruit left between industrialization and now. Progress is slowing down asymptotically approaching zero. And I think that's okay - consider that the progenitors of the current approach all had day jobs, all of them did this in addition because they HAD to do it. As long as society allows people to have sufficient free time, we'll still get progress in the foundations of physics. (Note that this argument does NOT apply to capital intensive experimentation, e.g. the LHC, space telescopes, or fusion research). Journeyman physics isn't all bad, and in fact can be quite good. Not only do you not have to worry about the social, administrative, political and funding headaches of academia, you are also not suffused in the always reasonable-sounding groupthink that persistently tells you what can and cannot be done, what should and should not be questioned. I strongly believe that the next truly big shift in physics, if it ever comes, must come from an outsider. (And if that happens, ironically, we'll have another period of fruitful professional academic physics, and later another iteration of this same discussion).
  • immibis 2y ago
    That doesn't have to mean exploitation. Labor can be done fairly (but not in capitalism, not really).
  • BLubliulu 2y ago
    None of us is making cloth, working in fields or even baking. We are so good, that we have an epidemic of people consuming too many calories. There is no way for me right now to get social security and being allowed to be in university. But i would be able to get social security. Officially universities throw you out after x years, but no one will bat an eye if you sit in a big lecture because there is plenty of space. But the documents/video recordings etc. is protected by some passwords for no particular reason. Imagine were you could go to a campus for a few years and have enough for feeding yourself, paper, pen and books and basic oversight (not blocking the space for someone who would use it to learn while you only sit in your room gaming).
  • mmooss 2y ago
    > for thousands of years, the human labor required to feed, clothe, and shelter a family wouldn't have allowed anyone to learn, preserve, and advance human knowledge without the labor of many being exploited one way or another by an elite few. That's quite a claim; is there a basis for it? Is there data? Research? Did manual labor really leave no time for other things - I've heard otherwise too. And why do all those people working need an elite few taking most of the capital for themselves, e.g., to build massive homes and to guild their castles and churches? That capital could have been invested in the population and greatly improved the standard of living, technology (reducing the need for labor), knowledge, etc. The elite few spent a lot of that capital fighting each other over power and land, not only consuming capital but destroying it - destroying much of what that labor built. They also use it to oppress many who could have raised humanity to greater fredom, knowledge, and prosperity. We reside in a living example of the far, far more successful alternative - no authoritarian country, now or in the past, comes close to the prosperity of free, advanced democracies. The justications for authoritarianism are popular these days.
    • istjohn 2y ago
      > That's not to justify anything or argue against egalitarianism today. I was quite clear that I'm not defending past or present inequality. I said nothing to defend the lavish lifestyles of feudal lords. I'm not a historian, but here's a description of the day-to-day life of a medieval peasant: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/mcgog5/comment/gtm6p56/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/mcgog5/comme...
      • mmooss 2y ago
        > I was quite clear that I'm not defending past or present inequality. How is that reconciled with (from GGP): > for thousands of years, the human labor required to feed, clothe, and shelter a family wouldn't have allowed anyone to learn, preserve, and advance human knowledge without the labor of many being exploited one way or another by an elite few. That seems to advocate for or justify exploitation of the poor by the wealthy?
  • abdullahkhalids 2y ago
    I don't know where this viewpoint comes from where, even though a cursory look at history gives counter evidence. We have ample anthropological evidence of societies engaging in labor that is beyond eat, cloth and shelter. The biggest such evidences are still there: The pyramids and other huge monuments, which took 100s of thousands or more of manhours to build. Many cultures had temples with ample evidence that people spent a lot of time engaging in religious activities there. Everywhere you evacuate, you see art pieces that had to be made by people spending time. The dead were often buried with weapons and food. There is plenty of evidence of people engaging in massive yearly festivals with lots of food, drinks and music. How is all of this happening if humans were like cattle spending all their looking for food?
    • istjohn 2y ago
      The pyramids is a perfect example of an elite few exploiting the labor of many. All that labor to build tombs for a small handful of people looking for an advantage in the after-life. Sure, in some places and times there was enough slack to allow common people to celebrate festivals or partake in elaborate religious activities. But I think you underestimate how costly education was when every book had to be painstakingly copied by hand.
• lanstin 2y ago
  Stephen Jay Gould was one of the writers I read as a teenager that changed my world view and way of thinking for the rest of the life. And I don't even like baseball, even now :) Such a clear thinker.
  • queuebert 2y ago
    He wrote his books as more or less first drafts. He had a lot of great ideas, but clear is not an adjective I would have attributed to his books.
    • lanstin 2y ago
      clear thinking; his deep ideas he returned to again and again - history of deep time, punctuated evolution, the implications of human evolution not being a climb towards some teleological end but of complexity gradually increasing with time. The incredible degree to which evolution and biology "take advantage" of contingent happenings.
• dimator 2y ago
  What a stunning thought. I always think about the sheer number of things that have to go right in order for a person to achieve scientific greatness. It is such a difficult, life long endeavor, and the path is so fraught with events that can derail. Like even being born in the wrong country, one lacking in food or academic mobility, for example. Right off the bat, how many millions of gifted humans just died of starvation, malnutrition, in poverty, in isolation, violence, etc. All that potential just lost to time.
  • xeonmc 2y ago
    Makes Ramanujan’s journey all the more special.
    • Xmd5a 2y ago
      Or Bose for that matter
      • xeonmc 2y ago
        I'd argue that Ramanujan was taking much more of a moonshot mailing Hardy as an unknown clerk, than Bose who was already an established academic when he contacted Einstein.
• GuB-42 2y ago
  I believe that geniuses like Einstein are just the tip of the iceberg. We need them, but they are not the limiting factor, and producing more of them may not have that much of an influence on scientific progress. What really drives progress, I think is production and technology. Like better telescopes. For the cosmic distance ladder, the clever mathematical tricks are nice, and necessary, but the real important part is the precise measurements. And for that, we need precise instruments. And precise instruments need good quality materials, skilled tradesmen, good tools, etc... The tools themselves need the same, and the tools to make the tools, etc... A lot of the measurements involve travel and long distance communication, which wasn't trivial either. Mounting an expedition to the other side of the world requires a ship, a crew, etc... Then we need to collect these data, and people have to write these books, we need librarians, archivists, etc... All that so that finally, one guy can look at the data and do the maths. And all that is far from the whole story. Skilled craftsmen and sailors need food and shelter, and the raw materials to practice their craft of course. They need farmers, miners, lumberjacks, etc... Farmers, miners and lumberjacks need their tools too. Advancing in the cosmic distance ladder is the work of millions of people over several lifespans, and some of them worked in cotton fields. We could wish the guy in the cotton fields was treated better, but it doesn't change the fact that in order to advance science, we actually need more people in cotton fields than people doing maths. With technological progress, we can afford to have more people doing maths and provide them with enough data to be useful, but that's a very recent development.
  • jstanley 2y ago
    > I believe that geniuses like Einstein are just the tip of the iceberg. We need them, but they are not the limiting factor For the alternative viewpoint: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/26/rule-genius-in-not-out/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/26/rule-genius-in-not-out...
    • jychang 2y ago
      I love Scott, but I think OP's meaning is not about verifying discoveries, but rather having the tools necessary to create discoveries in the first place. You can't invent an electric motor without electricity. Alternatively, think about how Da Vinci has many notebooks full of ideas- but lacked the resources to create them.
• SubiculumCode 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • cjfd 2y ago
    "do not throw your pearls before pigs"
• BLubliulu 2y ago
  I heard last week "Give It Away" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and that lyric catched me: "we have so much we need to share"
• piombisallow 2y ago
  Incredibly funny reply. If only the Sumerians "empowered people of color". The big "What If" of history.
  • jayrot 2y ago
    Nice try but I'm not talking about Sumerians and I have a feeling you know that.
    • piombisallow 2y ago
      Are you talking about US race politics? Do you feel this has not been discussed enough yet?
• csours 2y ago
  My view of genius has changed quite a bit as I've gotten a bit older. I think the word "genius" best describes a body of work, or an accomplishment that changes the world in a surprising way, that is, genius is not just intelligence, it is being in the right place at the right time, with the right people around you (Einstein's wife was reportedly brilliant as well), and then being driven to understand and describe the world back to people through new science or art. It means that a person has enough resources and few distractions that occupy their minds. In other words, 'genius' to me describes a situation, not just the person.
  • naasking 2y ago
    > genius is not just intelligence, it is being in the right place at the right time, with the right people around you Intelligence + circumstance is key, I agree, but I don't think you should devalue the intelligence part. Plenty of people face similar circumstances but don't move the world. I liken intelligence to a catalyst in chemistry: nothing happens if the ingredients aren't there, but if they are, it's remarkable. Without the catalyst, the progress of a reaction that has all of the right ingredients might not even be perceptible.
    • csours 2y ago
      If we're going to talk seriously about intelligence, I think we need to have a multi-factor understanding of intelligence. Too many people think that intelligence means doing well on tests (this was my view as I grew up). In the SciFi book "Children of Memory", Tchaikovsky at least splits intelligence into reasoning and recall. People also talk about system size and working set. Persistence is another thing I've come to view differently. The mind is willing to entertain a problem as long as progress feels possible. I wonder if that feeling of possible progress is trainable. Another view of 'possible progress' is rational faith (lower case f, sorry I don't have a less loaded term, after all, many consider faith to be irrational). But mainly, I think we are still in the dark ages of psychology, brain function, and theory of the mind. Thus it is important to me to be humble about how I talk about what intelligence might mean. --- By the way, I love the Children of Time series, but I had to really defocus my mind and suspend my disbelief and scientific critique to try to imagine other intelligences.
• BeetleB 2y ago
  > Can't help but wonder what our knowledge here in 2025 would be like had we, as a species, tapped into our full potential by empowering women and people of color (to name just a few categories) earlier. Can't speak for women, but we did tap into the potential of people of color. White race(s) getting ahead is a story of only the last few centuries, and they did benefit quite a bit from the work of "colored" races of the past. Also, keep in mind that in that time period, plenty of "colored" races were independent, and capable of many of those advances. That they didn't achieve it should give you a clue that justice and equality overall play a very tiny role in these advancements. There are just so many other (random) factors that go into creating an Einstein that have nothing to do with treating people fairly. As a random data point - my ancestors came from a society that did not value science and the accumulation of knowledge. It's why they were colonized, and also why that society continues to fare poorly today (long after the colonists left). Even today, amongst my relatives who live there, your are somewhat of a social outcast if you want to get deep into engineering/science. You're "supposed" to get that engineering degree to earn an income, and if you try to take it further (e.g. hobby), then you are "immature". (Sorry for that tangent, but it's not a tangent).