/sci/ - Science & Math

It's more common to be good at a bunch of things than just one thing, if you can believe that. Most of the "geniuses" of the world were experts in multiple areas (probably most within their fields, but whatever) but they excelled in one category above all others.

the secret is you have to do things somewhat differently than everyone else, which most people dont really want to do, which is fine if you want to live a drone life but most people suppress their uniqueness unconsciously

>>15084900
There's a vast gap between modern geniuses are old polymaths. For example, what an undergrad student learns in physics today, is greater than all the knowledge in physics that could be learnt in Benjamin Franklin's time. There's also an enormous bias to exaggerate his intellectual accomplishments because he was a Founding Father. His two only noteworthy achievements is discovering that lightning was a kind of electricity and mapping the gulf stream. If he weren't an FF he would be an extremely small footnote in the history of science.

But the recurring theme of real geniuses is that they have an enormous amount of training at a very high level. Everyone from Euler to Mozart had many years of intense training. There is no theoretical limit to what you can achieve intellectually, if you put in an enormous amount of skilled effort.

>>15084900
No, you can't a real expert in many completely different fields today. That was easier during the time of ben franklin but not these days.

>>15084900
>>15084930
I meant scientific fields, but I see that you mentioned music and philosophy. Being an expert in both music and philosophy might as well be possible even today.

>>15084900
The more you learn about Benjamin Franklin the more you will become in awe of the man.
He deserves the title of 'The First American".
He was a Giga-Chad among women, a genius, a philosopher, a writer, a politician, a businessman, a scientist, etc.
If you asked him what his occupation was he would say a Printer.

>>15084912
True. I guess my bigger complaint is that the current system desires us to be intellectual only in a specific way. There is this book someone recommended me a while ago called "[something something] Habsburgs" about how the German education system inadvertently led to a blossoming of philosophy with German Idealism, and that the alteration of this system led to a kind of collapse (plus other German problems of the time, you know). So the rate of "geniuses" has not slowed down, but we have altered their contributions and trimmed them so that only their technical contributions remain. Essentially this entire line of thought I'm having is me trying to answer, "Why is the intellectual environment right now so STERILE compared to the 19th century?"

The answer is institutions, of course. But I haven't figured out exactly how yet

>>15084954
True. He is one of the most admirable men ever.

>>15084900
It's natural to feel that you have the potential to do great things and to be interested in exploring and developing your abilities. While it is true that some people seem to have a natural aptitude for a wide range of activities and disciplines, it is also true that with hard work and dedication, anyone can achieve success and make meaningful contributions in their chosen fields.

There are no secrets to unlocking incredible potential in humans. Instead, it is a combination of talent, dedication, and opportunity that allows people to achieve success and make meaningful contributions. Some people may have a natural aptitude for certain things, but even these individuals will need to work hard and develop their skills in order to reach their full potential.

It is also worth noting that our society does value people who are talented and successful in a variety of areas. While it is true that some fields and disciplines may be more highly regarded than others, there is still a great deal of respect and admiration for individuals who are able to excel in multiple areas.

In short, while it may seem that some people are able to achieve incredible success with ease, the reality is that they have likely worked hard and dedicated themselves to developing their skills and abilities. With hard work and dedication, anyone can achieve success and make meaningful contributions in their chosen field.

>>15084927
Very true. I guess what I'm thinking more about is intellectual curiosity. People are less willing to cross intellectual boundaries nowadays and it's making the academic culture very stiff and boring. I genuinely blame this separation for most of why the humanities went to shit over the 20th century, why academic philosophy is so fruitless and why literature has become a self-flagellating circlejerk that deconstructed itself so hard its corpse had to be resurrected so we could reread all these classic works "through a marxist lens" ($$$). Now you are either a STEM kid or a humanities kid, and naturally neither values the contributions of the other. For us to really get on track, we need to return to interdisciplinary education. We need to provide opportunities for people to do it, and return to a culture where it is normal and encouraged. The humanities desperately needs this, but I also think STEM would benefit from it in turn, without some humanistic guidance all our inventions will only be used for greed. That's my belief anyway

>>15084900
>incredible potential in humans
Barefoot outdoor playing kite.

>>15084900
1. steroids
2. amphetamines
3. viagra
literally all you need

>>15084927
>His two only noteworthy achievements

DUDE!
You so fucking wrong!
JUST a few of his accomplishments as an inventor:
1. Lightning Rod
2. Bifocals
3. Swim Fins
4. Franklin Stove
5. Urinary Catheter
6. Armonica (musical instrument you hear played in the Harry potter movies)

Be aware that Franklin was also a scientist, politician, philosopher, write, postmaster, businessman, etc

>>15085022
>It's natural to feel that you have the potential to do great things and to be interested in exploring and developing your abilities.
What about being great in a way that no one is currently being? All the time I have these ideas that are like, "Why is no one else doing this? Am I crazy?"
Only recently I realized I could be onto something. The first step of doing great things is believing you can do them. If you often ask yourself, "Wait why is nobody doing this? Why is nobody saying this? Have people not noticed/thought this?" etc.
I am not a genius but this Schopenhauer quote is relevant

>>15084927
>For example, what an undergrad student learns in physics today, is greater than all the knowledge in physics that could be learnt in Benjamin Franklin's time.
Most of the physics that undergrads spend their time drilling is completely wrong. They come out of this system utterly broken--morally, spiritually, and intellectually--fanatically devoted to mystical, insane ideas and completely incapable of independent reasoning.

>t. degree in physics

Physics in Benjamin Franklin's time was unironically better because people in that age weren't being indoctrinated with false beliefs. They were capable of admitting that their models were speculative and could be overturned by reason and experiment. Physics peaked in the late 19th century and has been sliding backward since.

>>15085168
Explain how physics has degraded, I'm curious

>>15085208
Read the paper and it will be clear.

>>15084900
>Recently I started to make music, and it's actually really good and just reconfirmed my dreams.
Share some I'd love to hear it

>>15084900
One aspect is that humans fit roles for their units. With larger units through the expanse of the internet, less people dedicate to mastery. We have more people and fewer masters.

>>15085479
I just started making music 2 months ago so nothing is really good enough to share yet (My soundcloud is /worldlemu, all of the stuff there now is quite bad, though). However, I can share my musical plans:
>EP
I'm working on an EP that's 5-6 tracks long of acoustic guitar songs which use no studio effects, no accompaniment besides my voice, and are probably recorded in one take. This project stems from a lifelong issue I've had where I never enjoyed playing my guitar because the kind of music I enjoy doesn't sound satisfying without accompaniment. Even famous songs like Wonderwall sound like they're lacking something when played on just acoustic. I want to make some acoustic songs that are enjoyable without any accompaniment, and are also not just boring John Mayer type fingerpicking stuff.
>album
Within the next couple years, I want to make an album. It's more or less a critique of the growing negative culture around music that we seen lately. Increasingly, music is a vehicle for pessimism, nihilism, and escapism. 5th wave emo puts anime girls with knives on the cover art, breakcore is about mental illness, etc. It's very self indulgent. Even a lot of my favorite albums from 20-25 years ago are really sad. I want to make a thematically cohesive album with a central message to abandon escapism, surrender all ideas like "I will be rewarded in the afterlife after I die for ___", and admit that we only depended on them because we're too scared to face reality otherwise. The point is to try anyway. Also, I'm waiting until I discover a novel sound of music no one else has explored yet so my music sticks out from the crowd.

>>15084900
amerishit spotted
nothing that fat freemason homo did was impressive

>>15085168
why not link to the published version, pseud?

>>15085212
Yeah no, light doesn’t travel faster in one direction compared to another and the Doppler effect doesn’t change that.

>>15084900
>Maybe I'm naive, but why can't the rest of us do this?

The basis of American philosophical thought was that everyone should be at least knowledgeable and educated in every brand of learning. Naturally, some will excell more than others based on their inclinations and genius as gifted by Providence. Ben Franklin is one example. But it's also worth noting that Ben Frankly had whole teams of people he worked with his ideas on, and he'd be the first to admit it. Genius does not exist in a vacuum. You have to colaborate and cross paths with other bright people to lead to discovery and innovation that is positive for humanity.

In my personal opinion as an educator, I believe the thing that we largely miss today are study in the classics. What did Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, and literally all of our founding fathers have in common? They were well versed and fluent in Latin and Greek philosophical thought in regards to literally everything: Law, Ontology, Mathematics, Geometry, Literature, etc. They studied the great nations of the past for emulation. We have largely abandoned this, as well as reverence for God. Unless we return to that basis in our education, America will parish, and soon.

>>15086013
I think about the 13 colonies all the time, the intellectual environment seems so great. It was the most literate settlement of people on the planet and likely one of the most educated societies by % in history. I'm not sure exactly where or how we went wrong but by 1900 this had all gone haywire

>>15084900

>>15086013
>the basis of American philosophical thought was everyone should at least be knowledgeable in every branch of learning
This is generally what is thought of in most education systems, where European or East Asian.

>what did they all have in common
This is going to be a bit harsh, but what they also all had in common is they were almost all gentry, or gained entry into the upper societies of that time, like the Masonic Lodge. And many were hypocrites. Like despite preaching about moral virtue and service to God, Franklin had bastard children out of wedlock. And Washington kept slaves which he did not free after his death. As if all gentry activities, you're reverse associating it with success. It's like a cargo cult. Doing these things didn't make them successful, they did it because they were successful.

>>15086069
>I'm not sure exactly where or how we went wrong but by 1900 this had all gone haywire

In my opinion, the industrial revolution, and the slow decline of religion. The industrial revolution made everyone by and large lazier, and then the slow move away from reverence and respect for deity and deep philosophical thought corrupted our ontological spirit as a nation.

As Jefferson saw it, the concept of free speech would never be an issue since there would be such a great emphasis on education centered around virtue, which would be based in deity, regardless of denomination of religion. Today, there is no such emphasis or discourse in public school education (of which Jefferson was by and large the founder and conceiver of). I can speak from my own personal experience in business dealings, that most people today only care about their own advancement and gain, no matter who it will affect and what consequences it might entail.

And that's just in private business transactions, not to say anything of the public at large. In the general public, sloth, egoism, arrogance, and ignorance are idealized and respected. It was from the Notions of Liberty, Honour, and Glory, and such wise and generous Principles, which the meanest Citizen among the old Americans entertained, that we became so great and powerful, and a Terror to all Nation around the world worthy of great respect and admiration; as the sordid, timorous, cunning artifices, and the love of wealth and sensual pleasures, cultivated among the present Americans, has debased us now into the meanest and least feared Nation on the Earth.

I am of the belief that the answer is simple: We must return to the native simplicity of our founders and ancestors. We must place faith in deity again and cultivate that philosophic and theologic thought that once made us so respected and glorious among all peoples of the whole world. If we don't, we will not last the century.

>>15086103
>We must place faith in deity again
not really possible among younger generations of whites. it is not a question of how to restore christianity, but what must be done now that it has failed. perhaps a bitter pill, but personally I think christianity has completely failed to uphold western society.

>>15086100
I don't know if it's that black and white. Jeffersons slave Jupiter was present at the continental congress in Philedelphia in 1775, that same Congress where Jefferson was pleading with the other colonial representatives to abolish slavery upon the nations founding. Slavery was taking place the whole world over: If you didn't have slaves, you simply could not keep up in the global economic market. It's unfortunate, but it was a matter of neccesity.

You're right that there were some hypocritical views with the founding fathers, when we contrast their proposed beliefs with how they lived in practice. But then we're to remark this is true of all human beings all over, myself included: There are many beliefs I hold that I am convinced are true, but I fail to consistently live up to in practice. However, I do at least try to live up to them, though I may stumble and fall. Franklin may have had some hypocritical beliefs, but most founders did not and lived very pious lives.

This belif in the public that our civic leaders must be perfect and live infallable lives is impossible. That view in and of itself is hypocritical, since no one leads a perfect life. We do however have to try and make do the best we can with our lives. In early America it was possible to rise from the lowest, meanest class of citizens, into the highest political and civic honors. Alexander Hamilton is perhaps the foremost example in regards to our nations founders. Many were born into affluent homes and lineages, but many also were not.

>>15086104
It's failed because no one understands the Christian theology anymore. Protestants aren't preaching Christianity anymore. It's more akin to morally therapuetic deism: By that I mean, church has become "moral therapy" with this vague concept of deity attatched. This isn't Christianity. A truly practicing Christian recognizes that the Christian story is simply the reality of the universe: That we fell from deity by denying him and trying to make ourselves God; That the universe fell with us when we fell, but through the revelation of Christ in the world he brought the holy spirit with Him, we can be restored in our nature as rulers of the universe with God. The only denomination of Christianity that still preaches this message are the Orthodox Christians.

But I'm not even proposing we as a nation need to become Christian again: We need to simply become deist, but we aren't even that.

>>15086103
There are several points which I don't agree

First is that the view that pre-Industrial America was a virtuous society of noble people. The Founding Fathers were great writers and speakers, but doing virtuous things, that's another matter. As a whole, even though there wasn't any shortage of resources or threats, American society played very nasty. Like breaking every one of the hundreds of treaties they had with the Native Americans, which is not very honorable. The FF by and large were the merchant class becoming the new aristocracy. For example some of the FFs were the wealthiest men in America. Benjamin Franklin was essentially a media mogul who used his influence to affect politics.

Second is what you think old America was. Most of the world sure as hell wasn't scared of old America. America only became a global power sometime after the 1900s. Nor was it a shining city. Not sure why you would think that

Third is about faith. The fundamental failing of Abrahamic religion is the foundation of its virtue because of God forcing them to. Ancient civilisations like the Greeks and Chinese advanced virtue in itself, not because God told them to. So if God doesn't exist, then there is no virtue. Abrahamic societies struggle to escape this framework of thinking, which forces "faith" to try and make it function.

>>15086139
>First is that the view that pre-Industrial America was a virtuous society of noble people
From everything I've read of the literature of the 19th century, contrasted with the literature of today, they were far more virtuous and at least recognized the reality that God creates values, not humans. I don't think it's a controversial statement to say the 19th century Americans were far more pious and virtuous than Americans today.

>The Founding Fathers were great writers and speakers, but doing virtuous things, that's another matter
>As a whole, even though there wasn't any shortage of resources or threats, American society played very nasty
I'd love specific examples on both of these points and sources to back them up.

>Like breaking every one of the hundreds of treaties they had with the Native Americans, which is not very honorable
Based on the History of the Five Nations by Cadwallader Colden, I only saw the French breakings treaties and even attempting to incite violence among certain Native American tribes and the British colonies as far as the 1830's. Again, I'd love to read any source material you may have that contrasts his account, since he was a philologist who lived among the natives and learned and transliterated their language and peace treaties, I think that is a reputable source.

>The fundamental failing of Abrahamic religion is the foundation of its virtue because of God forcing them to
Would love an elaboration on what you mean by this. That is the opposite of religion: God never forces us to do anything, as evidenced by the billions of people who live contrary to his will at all times, myself included, and yet we are allowed to anyway. Christianity teaches an ontological relationship with God of our own free will. God does not force us to do anything.

>The FF by and large were the merchant class becoming the new aristocracy.
Many of them came from working middle class families. There are numerous examples I could site.

>>15086110
>it was taking place the world over
This is true, but this just makes the FF both slave owners and hypocrites too. It wasn't just Franklin, many did. They were essentially all the super wealthy merchant class which took over from the absent aristocracy. Jefferson, for example, owned hundreds of slaves.

>for the basest citizen to become a civic leader
This is true, but in the historical context this just coincides with the rise of the merchant class, like the Medici. It is not really a fixture of American society.

>>15086175
I think you're speaking too generally which is dangerous if we're going to have an honest discussion about our nations founding principles.

>>15086157
The History of the Five Nations, being very early and a sort of survey, would not mention. I can't give you all hundreds of treaties, but there are reputable sources confirming almost all were broken in some way. The specific and most popular example would be the 1868 treaty of Fort Laramie, which was increasingly violated by Congress as they took more and more land. A few decades ago the courts formally ruled it was violated and the government owed compensation to the Native Americans.

>specific examples
The controversies about them, for example their slavery and bastard children. Jefferson himself had bastard children with slaves, which is even more messed up.

>god never forces us to do anything
Yes, but the fundamental principle of Abrahamic religion is virtue is virtuous because God says it so. Its too long to get into here, but you can read say the Analects or Socratic dialogues and see how their philosophy of virtue isn't based on God. In Abrahamic religion virtue is essentially doing what God tells you to with free will. The philosophical problem is that if God doesn't exist, there's no virtue. Many problems arise from the faith needed in a God who cannot be proven to exist. Like, if two people went up to you and asked them to have faith in two different gods, which one do you have faith in?

>many of them came from working class families
The vastly disproportionate amount of them came from upper middle to upper class societies, like today's billionaires. Almost all were very wealthy by the time they took power. It's like the equivalent of Elon Musk becoming president.

>>15086103
>>15086104
>>15086110
>>15086117
Cowards afraid of a changing world.

>>15085774
Interferometers don't measure speed.

>>15086221
>Yes, but the fundamental principle of Abrahamic religion is virtue is virtuous because God says it so
This is the fundamental principle of Orthodox Judaism, not Orthodox Christianity.Orthodox Judaism is faith through rule following. Orthodox Christianity is faith through our ontological state relative to Christis perfect love. It's a relationship. God wants a specific type of person, not a rule follower. If you are of that ontological nature there are no 'rules', you're always following them. This is what the revelation of Christ brought into the world. If you had ever studied Christian religion seriously, and contrasted it with Orthodox Judaism, this would be obvious to you.

>Its too long to get into here, but you can read say the Analects or Socratic dialogues and see how their philosophy of virtue isn't based on God
There are instances innumerable where Socrates and Confucious adhere to a higher power and calling. Socrates died an unjust death since he believe in deity singular:

>"Very well, Crito; if such is the will of God, I am willing"
>"Then let me follow the intimations of the will of God."
Both from Crito. He literally died because he believed God was singular, not multiple gods like the pagan Greeks of that time. Xenophon in his defense of Socrates character makes it very clearly known Socrates beliefs in God singular.

Confucious regularly aludes to Virtue being objective, which can only be based in something outside of human capacity, or God. In another Chinese philosophical school, that Tao by Lao tzu, The Tao literally means "The way/Mother of existance/Uncreated Light", depending on it's context, which quite simply literally means deity, and that is similarly a Chinese philosophical school. Our founding fathers were well versed in Philosophy of the Greeks, though not many to the Chinese. They may never state so directly, but it is obvious virtue being objective can only be a reality in the nature and being of God.

>>15086069
>It was the most literate settlement of people on the planet and likely one of the most educated societies by % in history
Nothing that amazing came out of it at the time. You could say that even modern day silicon valley is more impressive, or ancient athens.

>>15086281
They had a really really good democracy. The township system still gets brought up as an example in debates of how democracy has potential to be actually good

>>15086221
>>15086274
Our founding fathers numbered 55 people. The primary 7 may have come from wealthier families, but I think your view on our nations founding is far too oversimplistic and narrow minded, which is the opposite of the way they wanted you to think about existance and goverance. They were complicated people with flaws, like all of us. Unless you can make the claim that you are flawless, and at all times without blame and at all times in a state of perfect virtue? If you cannot make that claim, then you have to take a more discerning look at our founding fathers and their beliefs. All of their writings, letters, debates at the continental congress are public record. Go read them sometime instead of commentaries by poeople who write about them with an agenda, and what you'll see is that there was an incredible array and diversity of thought and opinion amongst our founders. Any other take is simple propoganda and indoctrination.

There may have been issues with the natives in the mid to late 19th century to which I am ignorant of, and that is the next step in my own personal research. But regardless as to the specific way of life our founders lead, they believed in very high moral calling and had an enormous belief in the power of the human spirit. That is highly admirable, even if they came from upper middle class homes, and even if Jefferson had a few moments of weakness which resulted in bastard children. Franklin as well. It would be arrogant to ignore all of the great good and progress they made in our founding and the ideals they had to our nation because of a few vices. Unless of course, again, you can make the blame to be of spotless spiritual nature and to have never wrongs anyone in action, thought, or deed.

>>15086291
>The township system still gets brought up as an example in debates of how democracy has potential to be actually good
Daily reminder that all governance systems are nightmare dystopias when applied on a scale larger than a small town.

>>15086281
Electricity, off the top of my head, is one thing that came out of it, without which Silicon Valley could not exist.

>>15086069
>I'm not sure exactly where or how we went wrong

Demographics!
Look at who lived in USA at that time and who lives there now.
This is NOT rocket science.

>>15086069
>I'm not sure exactly where or how we went wrong
Have you ever heard of usury and central banking?

>>15086297
The intent was for the federal government to not have so much power as they have today. The intent originally was almost to be like the attic period of Ancient Greece: Several small 'citiy state' Republics which were governed locally with little oversight by the federal government. It has become the opposite today, which is for shame. I blame internet becoming to vast and influential, which, though I am using it currently to communicate with all of you, I believe has been a net negative to humanity and not a positive. I doubt that anyone would seriously maintain that the internet has brought us together. From what I have seen, all it has done is seperate us evern further from eachother, encourage tribalism and group think. The internet is basically a tower of Babel, everyone only listening to their own 'language' and people who believe the same as them, and ignoring and belitting all others.

This idea that technological progress is an objective 'good' to humanity was propogated by silicon valley marketing to convince you to let computers and technology they sell beome a part of your every day life. Not complicated really, if you step back and look at the matter with any sort of critical eye.

>>15086321
>The intent was for the federal government to not have so much power
>I blame internet

>>15086339
I blame the internet for allowing states to get involved in eachothers business, which lead to the ignorant calling on the federal government to innact federal policy to control the goverance of states that the outraged public don't live in. Notice you never hear discussions anymore about state policy and legistlature in debate settings. It's always about federal policy.

For example:Why does it matter if Alabama doesn't allow gay marraige, because of bunch of people in California, who don't live in Alabama and will never even visit there, are upset by it? I could site several others, but you get the point. The only logical conclusion I can see is that instant technological communication has allowed busy bodies to get involved in out-of-state legistlation that they have no business getting involved in. There's a reason Texas wants to succeed so badly: They realize the federal government is interfering too much with the business of Texas that does not concern them, and in which case the Federal Government has no business interfering in. That was the legal argument for Texas suceeding when it was in it's paliminary stages.

And let me be clear: I don't think the internet is inherently 'bad'. But in it's current state, it is so far from being a net 'good', that it's almost incredible to me that everyone keeps paroting that belief, and if you object to it, you will be mocked and belittled, which you did to me in the form of a 'retarded' wojack edit.

>>15086356
>I blame the internet
Of course you do. How do you feel about the Federal Reserve?

>>15086359
Obivously, I overestimated the level of critical thinking on this website. I figured a self proclaimed 'science' board would have more nuanced thinking. Evidently I was mistaken.

>>15086372
How do you feel about the Federal Reserve?

>>15086374
I really shouldn't have come to this place. It's chock full of Putin-controlled Russian trolls like you. You're only demonstrating that the internet really was a mistake.

>>15086383
How do you feel about the Federal Reserve?

>>15086374
I never wrote this >>15086383, that isn't me, who you were asking fors opinion on the fed

My opinion is that it was a good idea in theory but with the slew of corruption, ammendments and alterations to it's function is has become a disaster.

>>15086385
I know the people here aren't the brightest but I think everyone here can see that you're here to spread propaganda undermine American interests with your distractions. Of course Putin's trolls would be so protective of their puppet master's most useful tool.

>>15086390
>My opinion is that it was a good idea
Uh huh. So central banking was a good idea and the internet is bad. I wonder who could be behind this post.

>>15086390
>I never wrote this
I don't believe you for a second. Or maybe it was a coworker of yours?

>>15086395
Theory is one thing, application in practice is another. Sweeping changes should have taken place regarding it's function and even neccesity in the 20th century, but it never happened.

Maybe, if you weren't so paranoid, and obsessed with the idea that Jews are controlling every minute aspect of your existence, you would be able to see things clearly. You say things like "I wonder who could be behind this post", alluding to jews. To which I say to yours, "I wonder who could be behind this post", but I will answer the rhetorical question: A paranoid anti-semite.

>>15086399
Once again, straight paranoia. Some might say 'go take your meds', but I don't believe in personal attacks or belittling.

>>15086372
>>15086383
>>15086390
>>15086392
the absolute state of WEF shill farms

>>15086401
Funny, I don't recall mentioning jews.

>>15086404
I assure you no one is paying me. I'm actually about to leave and get ready for my real job. It's incredible to me how paranoid this site has become unless you espouse anti-semitic language and other generally racist, "alt-right" rhetoric.

>>15086409
>muh antisemites
>muh alt right
>muh racism
Exposed.

>>15086408
Based on the rhetoric on most of this site, "I wonder who could be behind this post" is a rhetorical question implying the Jewish conspiracy theory, and that they rule everything, is "behind" it. There are whole meme cultures commited to this. I can see you're back pedaling now, and are frankly just stupid, so I will stop communicating with you.

>>15086409
>I'm actually about to leave and get ready for my real job
you mean spamming /pol/?

>>15086416
>"I wonder who could be behind this post" is a rhetorical question implying the Jewish conspiracy theory
Am I being trolled? If not, they're really not hiring the best people for this job. Can you go out of your way even more to sound like a shill?

>>15086359
>>15086374
>>15086385
>>15086408
This anon has Pierced the Veil, positively brilliant to watch the dance

>>15086416
>" is a rhetorical question implying the Jewish conspiracy theory, and that they rule everything, is "behind" it
what if i told you, that faceless masters that pretend to be Jews put real jews in positions of power so that if things go wrong, they scapegoat them while they run off to Antarctica or Polynesia with both groups gold?

>>15086459
and that all the 'jewish conspiracy theory rhetoric' is just as ingenuous as the mainstream media rhetoric, and this is their chamber to fester their anti-thesis

What if I told you, that we see through the plan.

No true Jew runs population control

>>15084900
>Is there a secret way to unlock incredible potential in humans?
No because it doesn't exist. Either you're born valuable, special, gifted etc or you're not. Constantly chasing some vague, ethereal concept of "incredible potential" is just religious fervor by another name.

You don't have secret powers just waiting to be activated. Chances are almost every thought of inadequacy and insecurity you have is founded in some level of truth, it just varies in accuracy based on how much you let these thoughts upset you.

Just live your life and die, it isn't that big of a deal if you never invent the next calculus or write a beautiful symphony. Most true geniuses are just as miserable as normalfag NPCs anyway, they just find different things to be exceptionally miserable over. Being gifted won't make you happy or act as a light at the end of the tunnel.

>>15086100
>hypocrites
Some of the greatest most successful minds of all time in all fields were hypocrites that vehemently refused to live by any of what they spoke or believed. It doesn't delegitimize or legitimize anything about them, it just makes them shitty role models. But the idea that "great" people are good role models isn't even that common desu. Most generally accept that super intelligent types are weirdos whose personal livestyles are not to be emulated.

>>15086563
But who is to prove that you are not special or I am not special? It's not about identity, it's about actions. If I somehow invented something revolutionary or wrote an incredible book you would say, "Oh well he was born special all along" despite showing no prior aptitude. In plain terms it doesn't matter who you are, all that matters is what you do. If you're not sure whether or not you can do something amazing, the logical course of action is to believe you can do it and keep trying. Only if you fail countless times over should you consider giving up. It's not "I'm not a genius so I can't discover anything", it's "Hmm how about I try and discover something?". Only after you succeed will everyone act like they believed in you all along

>>15084900
>What do you think?
I think we are deep in stagnation.
https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Stagnation
The potential is there still, but is not encouraged.

>>15085039
>I guess what I'm thinking more about is intellectual curiosity. People are less willing to cross intellectual boundaries nowadays
Mostly true. A colleague of mine brought this up and was frustrated people did not ask the why and how about a situation. And "why" has become a four letter word in our times. I think te reason she asked is that she seems to be on the spectrum, and lacks the social touch to have the questions accepted as valid concerns.

>>15084927
Cope.

>>15085039
>Very true.
Found the zoomer.

>>15086263
>Cowards afraid of a changing world.
Romans should have feared the collapse that inevitably followed their decline. It brought Europe 1000 years of misery.

>>15084900
long term emotional trauma

>>15086297
>Daily reminder that all governance systems are nightmare dystopias when applied on a scale larger than a small town.
EU is a good example of that, and I think it is also important that the distance between rulers and the ruled is way past the breaking point.

The question of the "protestant working morale" intrigues me, and I see that even today the Swiss model brings democracy far closer to the people than in most countries.

>>15084900
Sadly the only real way is eugenics or some legalized form of CRISPR-Cas9

>>15084912
G factor

>>15084900
I play a videogame I like, a fighting game, at a very high level. I was bad at it for ages. As soon as a 'method' clicked for me, I had a way of managing and learning many many things at a far greater aptitude than anyone I personally have known at least

I actually don't know if I should tell anyone it because it usually results in them thinking it's too hard to apply despite being neanderthal tier simple and me being afraid they'll use it to get really really good

I'll just give a hint. The problem is not to approach learning like you are a weak computer trying to completely assimilate a program, try to approach things step by step. Just think of an idea and if it works a bit better than the next, just add it. You have to accept your humanity and weakness before you can become strong. A technique that makes it easier to write down and bring up notes is just as valuable as the ability to remember things

I do staring contests with my mother. I am naturally just really bad at them, I can't win, no matter what. Absolutely genetic. I giggle first, even though I absolutely don't really like her and want to stare her down a lot. But I still try to learn a little each time

I learn comedic timing for pulling faces. I tried to mask them as smiles I pulled for just a little, can throw that out if there's a rule against faking smiles but this is just a fun contest. I learn to think of other things while looking at her and not focus on what I'm looking at. I might even try just stabbing my fingers with my thumbnail as hard as I can without drawing blood to see if that helps

So I lost, and that's a simple skill, but that's a similar mentality to what I apply to things

You should just learn lots and lots of little tricks. Accept you won't be smart enough to originate most of them and borrow a lot too. Try to improve on them as well, if you can

>>15090177
tl;dr this also applies to chess. You mentioned Fischer. For chess you would have to figure out ways to just manage your time just a bit better than the next person. Study and memorize all the openings and variations, do tactical puzzles. There are tricks even I know for learning those situations, ask /tg/, they'll say to 'not solve the puzzles' and just analyze each of them a bit before moving on to get the patterns in your head

Whether you can or can't be good at it is another story but I actually think anyone can learn Chess, it's just ludicrously hard. The real problem with Chess is that the skill floor is really really low. It's not like a fighting game where correct and incorrect answers are ambiguous, Chess will punish you so hard for even the slightest mistake that learning it is easy even for a midwit. This is why Nakamura has a low IQ but is godly at the game and why it's impossible to be great at it easily, because anyone who puts in the time is going to be taught through their mistakes so long as they're smart enough to analyze where they went wrong. In some games that's more ambiguous and you can just stick with the wrong answer for years with only mild statistical discrepancies between how often you win doing a thing and how often you win matches not doing that same thing

I know a ton of things about talent that I learned bit by bit. If i just imparted these tricks onto you, you'd know what to focus on learning, be able to pick the right skills for your age bracket and interests (although I think anyone can do anything at least pretty well!)

Low Intelligence or lack thereof can cripple you, yes, but not nearly as hard as it cripples one's ability to see what they can and can't do.

When you understand this flow, you learn to live with it and can achieve your maximum potential!

It's a matter of turning ambiguous readings of things into concrete tricks and ploys you can memorize and play

Honestly though, I don't teach people this because a big trick is keeping your opponents sleeping. If I get really good at my game I'm going to hide as many tactics as I need and throw most games that aren't important, probably not bring them out until I need them too

It's not a bad idea to give bad advice. Maybe I'm just stupid but maybe you are all secretly geniuses giving bad advice to each other so you can stay ahead!

So this is what I mean. You have to accept that if you're mediocre, you should still try to improve bit by bit. Eventually those improvements snowball and inform each other and amount to something mighty. Your opponents are imperfect and if you can exploit that, you're going to have a good time

>>15085060
wow . there it is.

>>15090229
adding to my autistic spiel above just your post, it's easier to use what genius you have if you get into the habit of noting down exactly all your new ideas as they come and prioritize thinking inside of and iterating on them. I'm sure almost everyone has at least one or two entirely new ideas, even if a Genius might have up to five or ten in their lifetimes. Remembering and acting specifically on them can be a good decision in and of itself, showing talent can again bridge some gaps

>>15084900
>Is there a secret way to unlock incredible potential in humans?

The Truth.
Hard fucking God-Damn work.
Do not give up, do not stop... WORK!
Isaac Newton used to spend 16–18 hours a day working and studying in his room totally undistracted.
Newton had an incredible ability to keep his mind focused on one work at a time. He wouldn’t think of anything else until he’d finished the work he was doing. Newton worked 7 days a week, 18 hours a day.

WORK WORK WORK WORK!!!

People think geniuses just know things and everything come easy... BULLSHIT!
Work your lazy fat ass-off!!
Work harder than anyone else and then you will get things done.. people will marvel at what you can accomplish, your classmates wil lthink you are brilliant.. you are NOT.. BUT your hard work WILL accomplish great things, Work hard enough and people call you a genius... but you NEED to WORK!!

Do not work stupid... you need to concentrate on one thing and only that thing.. if you want to learn math then think of NOTHING BUT MATH!!!
Literally get to the library when it opens and stay until it closes work on just one thing.

WORK!!!

>>15090263
Nobody thinks that geniuses know everything but we realize that have an easier time learning things and also have a high intellectual ceiling on top of all the work they do

>>15090265
>have an easier time learning things

If you spend your time studying 12 -18 hours every day then your mind, like a muscle, grows stronger.
You DO learn things easier than others because you have learned to concentrate on one thing until you understand it.
You may not be born a genius, but you can work you hard enough to appear to be one.

Read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography... he worked and worked and worked... he was naturally smart and worked to become smarter.. even when he had accomplished great things, he did not stop working... Whenever he found something he was interested in, he worked at learning about it and studying it... WORK!!!

>>15085208
>>15085774
>>15085212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAYPi0nqJ50

I dare you all to watch this the whole way through.

>>15090265
thats retarded excuse for lazy people that got everything gifted to them, its all just work and time, we are all the same faggot, the same neurons in brain, youre just faggot that choosen easier less involving path in life

>>15090312
Nice cope. Evolution stops above the neck I guess.

>>15084900
Stop focusing on/revolving around what people say you should be doing and do what you want. Being good at one thing lends to multiple areas because drilling down into the specifics of a craft/skill leads to mutual proto/ancestor-disciplines like a lineage.

>>15090322
Not so much being good but a familiarity with one broad or generalized path is useful for linking to other idiosyncratic or specialized paths like a deductive chain.

>>15090263
>Isaac Newton used to spend 16–18 hours a day working and studying in his room totally undistracted.
source?

There are academics and there are engineers. Engineers create things out of thin air. They're magicians in a sense. Creating something that had never existed before and the universe had not created before.

In the past, the divide wasn't so apparent. But in today's specialized world, it's critical. Combine the engineering mind with scientific mind gives you super genius like Edison, Tesla, Elon, Gates, etc. Where as academics of today's world are largely stuck behind some obscure paywall journo that no one reads about.
The difference between academics and engineers are actually making things. Don't imagine. Create.

>>15084900
If anyone holds the knowledge of how to unlock human potential, that person surely won't be on /sci/

>>15084900
Ordinary people have suffered injuries to the head, and came out with dramatically improved mental levels. Nobody knows how this can be.

>>15084927
>what an undergrad student learns in physics today, is greater than all the knowledge in physics that could be learnt in Benjamin Franklin's time
An undergraduate can't even solve the highschool math problems from Franklins time
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Chrystal%2c%20G.%20%28George%29%2c%201851-1911

>>15084900
Put them in a stressful environment that requires consistent creativity and practicality, and rewards being clever. There's a reason innovations tend to occur at the early to mid points of crises and revolutions.
The existing power structure is solidifying and punishes innovation because it likely upsets the balance of power

>>15090186
I know the actions to follow to get good at chess but they are too boring. I can't do boring things.

>>15090320
>Evolution stops above the neck I guess.
You are a weak fatass that eats potato chips on the couch all day and instead of blaming your laziness and lack of exercise you blame muh genes and muh evolution?

>>15090177
>>15090186
When you mention "little tricks" for doing things better, I get that. Recently I started songwriting and figured out all kinds of things that add up to make you better at it

>Listen to tons of music all the time - it defines the creative ceiling for how unique your ideas can be
>Ideas are everything, without them good music doesn't happen
>Creative ideas won't happen unless you try to have them, but nothing is guaranteed: You have to play the lottery to be able to win
>The shortcut to making good music is to channel your emotions as much as possible, your brain will often channel effectively without conscious thought if you let it
>No formula exists for making a good song unless you directly copy something that already exists
>The fastest way to make a song sound like shit is using instruments with clashing tones
>Avoid listening to your songs for fun until they are 100% as good as they can be - the more you relisten, the more you stop hearing it with fresh areas and stop noticing all the ways it can be improved
>The morning after you draft up a song is the most important time to relisten, the best time to make big changes, you'll hear it all in a new way
>If your gut is telling you to go in a certain music direction, just listen to it

These probably won't work for everyone. l do believe life is about finding these things that combine to make you better at stuff

>>15095174
>>15095174
*Yawn*, strawman, ad hom, etc. I never said people couldn't work hard to achieve their individual ceiling. The point is Albert Einstein could never be Michael Jordan and vice versa. Anyone can work hard but we all have our own unique limits and strengths.