/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15251239]

Why are there no more geniuses today? What sort of capabilities would one have given access to todays research sector?

[Anonymous No.15251250]

but I am right here

[Anonymous No.15251261]

>>15251250
owo

[Anonymous No.15251383]

>>15251250
Yes, yes you are :3

[Anonymous No.15251395]

Fluoride in water, lead in air, neolib in society

[Anonymous No.15251402]

>>15251239
People became too overworked, unable to find time and energy to persue knowledge. Also school/academia became too engrossed in the pursuit of money.

[Anonymous No.15251407]

>>15251239
>einstein was a genius
why? because the jewish television says so?

[Anonymous No.15251430]

>>15251407
He was not a genius. An average physicist at the most. The photoelectric effect is just a poorly copied Planck's quantisation. STR is just a consequence of Lorentz transformations, GTR directly follows from the works of Ricci, Riemann, Hilbert and others.

[Anonymous No.15251436]

>>15251430
He didn't even discover the photoelectric effect. It used to be named after Heinrich Hertz.

[Anonymous No.15251712]

>>15251430
>The state of /sci/entists

[Anonymous No.15251718]

>>15251239
Because the easy stuff has mostly been solved. Now the things left to solve are either difficult or require large equipment that people don't really have access to. There's also the major problem of turning science into business with things like CROs that overcharge and underdeliver. There's another problem of the massive amount of data being generated every year, not just typical data but research papers and journals and things to keep up with is probably overwhelming for a lot of people. I think we'll get some speedups from AI hopefully and maybe it can help clean up and filter the data

[Anonymous No.15251719]

>>15251718
Not to mention the creation of peer review in the 1960s, which gatekeeps people with paradigm-shifting ideas out of sight.

[Anonymous No.15251723]

with jews you lose

[Anonymous No.15251735]

What if the smartest person in the world was actually a woman but she never became famous?

[Anonymous No.15251736]

>>15251735
It isn't possible because of how the bell curve for women is. Women concentrate towards the middle while men have an extended tail of geniuses and retards.

[Anonymous No.15251744]

>>15251239
There are far more interesting things to do than to cuck out to institutions for crumb of status. See House M.D for why it's not worth. A real genius would be free of shackles working on mad genius science shit in the shadows.

[Anonymous No.15251756]

>>15251239
Chemical and social warfare. Replacement of meritocracy with diversity

[HoB No.15251803]

>>15251239
From the script to ep 2:
"Of course, this historic trend of researchers specializing into the more and more specific fields of study with only the basic image of the whole picture is forced by the increase in the amount of information that is necessary to operate in the field effectively and other social and economic factors.
To become the modern equivalent of Aristotle's, that is a polymath with the current level of expertise in the fields of physics, biology, astrology, sociology, political science, philosophy, phycology, theatre, poetics and even more is practically impossible because that would take so much time and energy and even if you can pull it off somehow when you achieve you won't really be able to contribute much because you will probably be very old at that point and about half of your knowledge would be outdated.
>>>

[HoB No.15251809]

>>15251803
Some would consider it to be a good thing because it prevents Plato's Concept of a philosopher king with complete authority over everything or even a council of 10 such people from being a viable way to control society even in a relatively small nation or even just in the department of science with disregard to any non-authorized initiative from below.
Unfortunately, in practice, there were and still are influential leaders who claim to be able to if not achieve this level of understanding of the world, then at least be able to take up any field of study and become an expert in a month or so with some arcane techniques that came with their vast experience and/or raw talent that they possess.
>>>

[Anonymous No.15251812]

>>15251239
They exist but they have no reason to rot inside of academia.

[HoB No.15251813]

>>15251809
What they really possess in most cases is a substantial material and/or social capital being available early on that they expand through their undeniably genuine talent in the management of human resources and maybe some talent in one other thing in which they can compete with the experts on their team.
In everything else they give themselves the authority to make the final decision by leveraging their success in other fields and a claim to the understanding of the bigger picture that might suggest that something unreasonable within the scope of this subject makes sense when it all comes together.
>>>

[HoB No.15251815]

>>15251813
Needless to say, this environment is inherently unstable because if the leader makes big mistakes there's no one to stop him until the damage is clearly visible to all and has affected almost everything in some shape or form and so the way to mitigate it everywhere is unclear.
And also because all of this hinges on the leader and not the institutions that he built up and so after his departure or at best the departure of his direct successor if he was sufficiently prepared in advance, the whole system either collapses or transforms into something else, usually with much less ambition and a smaller scope.
This general development unfortunately did come to pass in both the Plato's Academy and the Aristotle's Lyceum, although there were many other external factors that could be the main reason for this."

[Anonymous No.15251901]

>>15251239
We need to return to the old ways before postmodernism contaminated civilization, that is 1914. Anybody who holds or sympathizes with socialism, communism, feminism, woke, or postmodernist ideas must be brutally tortured and executed in public with the rest of their families, including the children. That is the only way to save mankind.

[Anonymous No.15251904]

>>15251735
She would become famous like Marie Curie was

[Anonymous No.15251921]

>>15251239
There are more geniuses today than ever before. However all the low hanging fruit have been picked. You can't be a lone individual working in an office all day by themselves discovering fundamental truths about the universe. It doesn't happen anymore. Now it requires teams of hundreds or thousands and vast amounts of funding to progress by a tiny sliver.

[Anonymous No.15251925]

>>15251921
>Now it requires teams of hundreds or thousands and vast amounts of funding to progress by a tiny sliver.
sure it does

[Anonymous No.15251927]

>>15251901
Based

[Anonymous No.15251959]

>>15251925
Prove him wrong.

[Anonymous No.15251977]

>>15251239
theres no such thing as geniuses becuase we realize scientific progress happens in collaboration.
and also geniuses are a hindsight bias.
theres tons of crowned geniuses today. we are just woke to the media circus that props these people up for their service to imperialist nations.
petersen, harris,dawkins,nick land, a few math nerds, and a buncha science e celeb faggots could be considered geniuses once the historians start auditing contemporary canon.

[Anonymous No.15251987]

>>15251959
Science has only regressed since Einstein paralyzed it.

[Anonymous No.15251990]

>>15251987
> source: because anon said so

[Anonymous No.15251991]

all the people we are calling genius are "economists" that crash markets as a past time.

geniuses found a way to keep the numbers going up. to the,establishment thats all they are good for.

[Anonymous No.15251998]

>>15251239
after centuries of nerd bashing, your wondering what happened to all the nerds?

[Anonymous No.15252000]

>>15251809
>Plato's Concept of a philosopher king with complete authority over everything or even a council of 10 such people

The entire point of this is to be the best way to *prevent* worse forms of tyranny arising. Do people not read Plato and not understand what he was advocating for and why? Do they not get that the 'Kings' are means to take vows of poverty on condition of their rule in order to prevent corruption and that they are meant to be raised by their society to be virtuous or order to be worthy of this position, as opposed to this being hereditary? Do people seriously think Plato advocated for something like "people who are the best as philosophy, like me, should rule!"

[Anonymous No.15252003]

>>15251998
Nerd bashing allowed geniuses to rise. Now every midwit who f-ing loves science floods the discipline and keeps real genius down using peer review.

[Anonymous No.15252007]

>>15251239
genius is rarely ever recognized in its own time. most geniuses would have a hard time of it today, especially if they tried to pursue a career outside of academia.

[Anonymous No.15252010]

>>15252007
genius doesn't always translate into social ability or finincial acumen either. Once you start getting into esoterism you realize that most of our most valuable insights come from people most people have never even heard of, while imitators and exploiters tend to receive the credit for their hard work.

its a tragedy of the human condition.

[Anonymous No.15252011]

>>15252000
and then what the hell is in it for them? the ability to be societies fucking doormat? plato fags just want to be the power behind the throne, trying to top from the bottom.

[Anonymous No.15252013]

>>15252011
you can't eat honor.

[Anonymous No.15252019]

>>15252011
then you get the kind of fags who think you should 'force' virtuous, clever people in civil service. Which is just another way of controlling the debate by controlling the forum, controlling the democracy by controlling the money supply, over and over again, gaming the system so the plato fags can come out on top while putting some stooge on the throne who is doing it for the 'glory' while simultaneously being denied the privileges of his position.

[Anonymous No.15252026]

>>15252019
with all the moral compromises, unfairness, and general stupidity and lunacy that goes into human hierarchies and power structures, epecting your leaders to serve anonomously and in poverty is just adding insult to injury. people don't fight their whole lives to come out on top just to be subjected to the whims of some appointed polity that prescribes itself as a regulatory body out of nowhere.

The ancient kings of clans fought and bled on the battlefield to reach their position, they didn't do so for some appointed political brat of some self-aggrandizing clerk to control the decision making process and deny responsibility and scapegoat their leaders when things go south from their backseat driving.

[Anonymous No.15252028]

>>15252026
you say its a 'safety net', but for whom? not for the guy who takes the heat, but for the power behind the throne. Modern executive authorities and positions are nothing but convenient scapegoats for bloated and oppressive legislative bodies. If somebody goes out on a limb with that legislations fringe policies, taking the blame, there is no safety net for them when they come for his head to be put on the chopping block.

[HoB No.15252107]

>>15252000
The structure supposes that the human nature is changeable and you can make your homo soveticus or in that case three breeds of people with different "souls" that naturally accept this way. Check out Brave new world (by an author from a famous biologist family btw) to see the results of this thougt experiment

[Anonymous No.15252117]

>>15252028
i mean who do you think is going to take the blame when we inevitably lose our russian conflict? not the ideologues who pushed for the neo-con agenda, not the arms companies who made a fortune off the confusing legalities and bizarre media realities of modern warfare, not the senators or congressmen who jumped on a popular cause to try and pick up momentum and will turn heel on their constituents with their gold fish level attention spans, its going to be the guys who got invested or put their money where their mouth was.

Its the same as always, a lot of hype, not much substance.

[Anonymous No.15252121]

>>15252117
Its a lot of suffering and ill will for such a risky, foolhardy bet. a lot to suffer for some mens pride. No one who was forced to suffer the actual consequences of their executive decisions would have ever followed through with it.

[Anonymous No.15252155]

>>15251977
>theres no such thing as geniuses
>t. coping midwit

[Anonymous No.15252164]

>>15252003
> Nerd bashing allowed geniuses to rise.
stupidest take lmao. Not even gonna argue it.

[Anonymous No.15252176]

>>15252155
geniuses are only useful inso far as their utility to the ruling class.
any geniuses that go against the king will have their canon tourched in public square.
who do you think selects the geniuses.
and where do geniuses usually go?
games and theory for the federation.
the best chance we had were hackers but now corporate pentesting producting teams pretty much encourage kids to hack in order to get a cushy secops jobs. (also one of the biggest growing career pools interms of college grads)

[Anonymous No.15252199]

>>15251239
>Einstein
>a genius

[Cult of Passion No.15252202]

>>15251239
Imagine Edison gatekeeping Tesla and he was just "some schizo posting "muh theory" online.

lol.....lmao......
;_;

[Anonymous No.15253530]

>>15251239
>Why are there no more geniuses today?
Oh, they are there. Problem is, they are filtered out by academic politics. Academia is now full of fraudsters who edge out honest scientists. Also:
https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Stagnation
I just checked the search function on 4ch, and stagnation really is a topic that is discussed everywhere here.

[Anonymous No.15253582]

>>15251719
My dude you do not want people doing things outside of peer review in an AI society

[Anonymous No.15253598]

>>15251239
Distractions. Any would by genius has a near infinite ways to waste his time if he so chooses.

[Anonymous No.15253616]

>>15253582
>AI society
AI is a meme pushed by pajeets and changs after the crypto/nft meme fell through

[Anonymous No.15256257]

>>15251239
>If a young Stephen Smale exists today, instead of doing work that will win him a Fields Medal, odds are good that he’s instead a NEET getting really good at optimizing playthroughs of Europa Universalis IV.

https://www.revolver.news/2023/03/the-ugly-truth-about-why-middle-class-kids-not-getting-into-harvard/

[Anonymous No.15256296]

>>15251239
Science has advanced so much that human geniuses cant even revolutionize it anymore you need super geniuses like that Korean dude Terrence Tao.

[Anonymous No.15256324]

The next generation will be full of geniuses who grew up with digital information media and multasking.

[Anonymous No.15256351]

>>15251395
All of this and poisonous food

[Anonymous No.15256352]

Ahem

[Anonymous No.15256485]

>>15256257
>odds are good that he’s instead a NEET getting really good at optimizing playthroughs of Europa Universalis IV.
Kek know a few STEM dropouts who wnet down this path

[Anonymous No.15256715]

>>15251239
most of the "low hanging fruits" of science have been picked, look at recent nobel prize, all giant teams with billion dollar budgets. The Era of lone geniuses is over. To be successful in the scientific community of today, just being a genius in your respective field isn't enough, you need the social skills to manage a huge team, and business savvyness to attract investors from either government or private industy. A lot of the introverted types instead end up doing >>15256257

[Anonymous No.15256828]

>>15251239
Einstein was a hackster doofus

[Anonymous No.15256868]

>>15251239
>Why are there no more geniuses today?
we all got sabotaged by some weird brainwashing program in elementary school and we all ended up dropping out in highschool and turning to drugs/alcohol/etc
there's already a thread about this on /sci/

[Anonymous No.15256871]

>>15256352
>has done nothing aside from publish a bunch of esoteric nonsense

[Anonymous No.15256903]

>>15256257
>>15256715
I am one doing KSP right now at 22
Did the Witcher series last year
I think this thread is FULL OF SHIT, I dropped out of CS last year after 3 years and I can quote the Hitler line my grades were strong in certain things and awful in others
Young geniuses don't exist because boomers and that whole age group have taken the gall to publish statistics on them instead of loving them
There's literally nothing more to it, they push the cost of education onto us while bleeding cash themselves instead of annihilating the educational system for a more modern approach so children can go fucking play outside with paper and dope planes and blow things up

[Anonymous No.15256908]

>>15256903
>There's literally nothing more to it, they push the cost of education onto us while bleeding cash themselves instead of annihilating the educational system for a more modern approach so children can go fucking play outside with paper and dope planes and blow things up
This. Because of their love of money and demand for more, they destroyed your chance at a future and they want to use technotroonery and state economic control to make sure they keep at it until they croak.

[Anonymous No.15256920]

>>15251239
Societal burnout. We are currently experiencing a collapse. We are unironically in a worse position than ww2 when bombs were dropping by the hundreds from the sky. There will be a renaissance sometime and we will have geniuses back again.

[Anonymous No.15256940]

>>15256908
I should have worked harder of course, but I have seen up and down the computer science field through connections and it's not looking good, take my opinion as salt

[Anonymous No.15256959]

>>15251921
>>15256715
this is what they said at the end of the 19th century during the last slow down caused by normies turning science into a cartel. the bolus will be dislodged eventually.

[Anonymous No.15257000]

>>15256959
>science into a cartel
the slowdown is nearly 100% the fault of the US government always trimming the NSF budget so we can spend more money on the military

[Anonymous No.15257003]

>>15257000
Retard alert.

[Anonymous No.15257039]

>>15257003
no argument alert

[Anonymous No.15257121]

>>15251239
>Why are there no more geniuses today?
There are more of them alive, today, than at any prior point in history. That is simple numerical reality. There is no interpretation of this question where it makes sense except to refute the question or render it meaninglessly subjective. It is purely fabricated "golden age" mythmaking where, as you see in this thread, everyone can justify it with their own pet theories, grudges, or values.

Given none of you came remotely close to the right answer on this, let alone realized what you all represent (said pet theories and biases of personal values), I must congratulate you on being the midwits you claim to hate.

[Anonymous No.15257124]

>>15257121
Not shocked that a qualialess drone like you manages to both correctly identify the problem and then completely miss it in the same post.

[Anonymous No.15257126]

>>15257124
>Not shocked that a qualialess drone like you manages to both correctly identify the problem and then completely miss it in the same post.
Feel free to dazzle me with your explanation of what I allegedly missed.

Ten bucks says you do what I just said everyone's doing.

[Anonymous No.15257133]

>>15257126
There are more geniuses in the world simply due to the higher number of total people. This is correct.
But unlike in historical eras, genius isn't selected by society. None of these people are being utilized to their fullest extent so you don't see them. Scientific progress is calcified around midwits rather than trend-setters.

[Anonymous No.15257140]

>>15257133
>But unlike in historical eras, genius isn't selected by society.
Oh damn, and he boldly reiterates the same golden age fallacy I said he would not five minutes ago. You owe me ten bucks.

[Anonymous No.15257144]

>>15257140
Completely retarded NPC take. Reiterating the same nonsense in an attempt to reify it doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.15257150]

>>15257140
The golden age "fallacy" implies that people have gotten dumber and are less capable than in prior eras. >>15257133 is about talent utilization, which is fundamentally not about the quality of a population but of its leadership and organizational ability.

[Anonymous No.15257159]

>>15251239
Lack of incentive. Only a retard would play ball under these rules. We're just privately being smarter than u, counting down the clock, waiting for sweet release.

[Anonymous No.15257180]

>>15256324
I'm not sure how much of my innate disgust for children with iPads is a boomer-like phobia of technology and how much is reasonable concern for childhood development.

[Anonymous No.15257184]

>>15257144
>Completely retarded NPC take.
This is the same rhyme that goes with "everyone I disagree with is hitler".
>Reiterating the same nonsense in an attempt to reify it doesn't make it true.
You'd be right if that's what I based my claim on. Y'know, "There is no interpretation of this question where it makes sense except to refute the question or render it meaninglessly subjective."

INSTEAD, since I'm NOT stupid like the rest of you, I already knew the disqualifying fact because I already knew how to test it if it could be made meaningful.
>>15257150
This also applies to your cute "no buht muh talent utilization" post hoc rationalization because it's also falsified by one simple fact.

Namely: IQ and personal income have never been more correlated than in modern times. Other factors such as wealth, which at the extremes is largely inherited, are irrelevant as wealth was always such. Ergo, "talent utilization" measured economically is at its highest as the top earners who HAVEN'T merely inherited their positions and ARE top earners as a matter of merit and ability (said ability being represented by IQ) are currently at historically peak utilization.

As I said: Golden age fallacy.
>The golden age "fallacy" implies that people have gotten dumber and are less capable than in prior eras.
That's like saying an ad hominem fallacy is only and exclusively saying "your mom sucks dick". If you can't even grasp the concept of generalizability and variables, well, color me impressed.

[Anonymous No.15257291]

>>15251718
Wish we could focus on human intelligence but of course they ban that

[Anonymous No.15257348]

>>15257121
>That is simple numerical reality.
Midwit take. That would only be true if the distribution of intelligence in humans has remained constant throughout history. In turn, that would only be true if human genetic quality and developmental environment remained constant. Neither condition holds.

[Anonymous No.15257998]

>>15257348
>Midwit take. That would only be true if the distribution of intelligence in humans has remained constant throughout history. In turn, that would only be true if human genetic quality and developmental environment remained constant. Neither condition holds.
Flynn effect. So there goes yet another dipshit take from you dipshits.

See, this is the problem. You're all so confidently retarded.

[Anonymous No.15258003]

>>15251239
You mean like Wolfram or Kurzweil?

[Anonymous No.15258010]

>>15251719
More like the corporatization of peer review and textbooks and research put behind paywall catalogues and indexes instead of in public libraries databases and actively prosecuting/fining people like Aaron Schwartz who try to leak research information to public outlets.

[Anonymous No.15258013]

>>15251735
What if being a genius was actually super retarded?

[Cult of Passion No.15258017]

>>15251803
>To become the modern equivalent of Aristotle's, that is a polymath with the current level of expertise in the fields of physics, biology, astrology, sociology, political science, philosophy, phycology, theatre, poetics and even more is practically impossible
Hello, again, HoB.

[Anonymous No.15258028]

>>15251239
Isolated or medicated.

[Cult of Passion No.15258034]

>>15258028
>Isolated
I feel more alone in a crowd or with a group at a table talking than I do alone in the woods.
>medicated
A shot of Congac or Brandy, or a joint.

[Anonymous No.15258043]

>>15258034
or

[Cult of Passion No.15258047]

>>15258043
Or you are all insane robots and I merely anthro'd you people into living matter.

Yes, that *is* a possibility...but not one I wish to be true the most...

[Anonymous No.15258048]

[Anonymous No.15258054]

>>15257133
>But unlike in historical eras, genius isn't selected by society.
yeah, because we were better off when intelligent serfs spent all day farming cabbage
Full of shit

[Anonymous No.15258099]

>>15257000
Retard the slow down is the normification of science and math.

[Cult of Passion No.15258104]

>>15258099
...and thats when a novel, radically different approach, is needed...which will be rejected by the Pharisees by calling ir "Heresy (Schizo)." Many Such Cases In History.

Im glad we understand the future and our parts in it.

[Anonymous No.15258184]

>>15258054
Just /pol/tards pushing golden age fallacies to serve an agenda. The usual.

[Anonymous No.15258196]

>>15257121
> It is purely fabricated "golden age" mythmaking
And just like that, you expose the true motivating factors for your baffling drivel. You are lashing out in defense of your civilization-destroying handlers.

[Anonymous No.15258201]

>>15258196
>And just like that, you expose the true motivating factors for your baffling drivel. You are lashing out in defense of your civilization-destroying handlers.
Aw the poltards are upset I mopped the floor with them. Boo hoo

[Anonymous No.15258203]

>>15258201
>muh /pol/ boogeyman
Exposed again.

[Anonymous No.15258208]

>>15257121
>There are more of them alive, today, than at any prior point in history. That is simple numerical reality.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.15258220]

>>15258203
You literally began with claiming my objections were evidence of hidden intentions. Not my fault you don't like your own medicine.
>>15258208
>Proof?
Flynn effect, number of adults alive, lower mortality rates, FAR lower disease/neurological damage rates, the fact genius (variously over 145 or 165 IQ) is generally random not familial (known in literature as discontinuity), bla bla bla. The list is near endless.

[Anonymous No.15258221]

>>15251395
and niggers

[Anonymous No.15258223]

>>15258220
>You literally began with claiming my objections were evidence of hidden intentions
No, I simply pointed out that you failed to hide your intentions. You then immediately confirmed my observation. lol

[Anonymous No.15258224]

>>15258223
>No, I simply pointed out that you failed to hide your intentions. You then immediately confirmed my observation. lol
The narcissism is strong with this one.

[Anonymous No.15258228]

>>15258220
>Flynn effect, number of adults alive, lower mortality rates, FAR lower disease/neurological damage rates, the fact genius (variously over 145 or 165 IQ) is generally random not familial (known in literature as discontinuity), bla bla bla.
None of this proves your claim.

>The list is near endless.
It is? Then you should be able to provide at least one item of proof. Notice how you are losing your mind with anger.

[Anonymous No.15258231]

>>15258228
>None of this proves your claim.
Science is about evidence, not "proof". All of that evidences my claim.
>>15258228
>It is? Then you should be able to provide at least one item of proof. Notice how you are losing your mind with anger.
lol

[Anonymous No.15258232]

>>15258231
>Science is about evidence,
Okay. Provide evidence. It's really funny what a primitive animal you are and how little your capacity for metacognition is. You are incapable of telling the difference between a logical line of thought and sharting out vague associations like a literal GPT bot.

[Anonymous No.15258239]

>>15258232
>Okay. Provide evidence
Do you mean citations? I referenced my evidence already. You can start with something like this, which is a fair overview of some relevant points. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286575/

You'll find the general sentiment in most research, if not all, pertaining to genius discussing the biological aspect tends to make similar remarks as this review does. Namely, given how everything has to work optimally it stands to reason modern medicine and good health would greatly raise the probability of that occurring. That is regardless of whether or not you accept discontinuity so the evidence, and point, remains the same.

>It's really funny what a primitive animal you are and how little your capacity for metacognition is. You are incapable of telling the difference between a logical line of thought and sharting out vague associations like a literal GPT bot.
I want to frame this.

[Anonymous No.15258244]

>>15258239
>I referenced my evidence already.
No, you didn't. Are you a complete subhuman, or will you be able to figure out the huge leap between what you're vaguely alluding to and what you were supposed to demonstrate?

[Anonymous No.15258253]

>>15258224
>mandatory normalgroid reference to the N buzzword
>redditspeak
Like clockwork.

[Anonymous No.15258258]

>>15258244
>No, you didn't.
If you're reduced to "nuh uh" this is too boring even for me to bother with. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.15258261]

>>15258258
I just wanted you to demonstrate what I mean when I say you are an animal with no metacognition and you just did that. Thanks. Now let me spell out your mistake: at most, you'd be able to show that there are more people with genius-level IQs. How do you get from this to proving that there are more actual geniuses? Let the impotent rage and deflection commence.

[Anonymous No.15258267]

>>15258261
>How do you get from this to proving that there are more actual geniuses?
womp womp
>>15257121
>There is no interpretation of this question where it makes sense except to refute the question or render it meaninglessly subjective.
Your value judgments on what constitutes "actual genius" are exactly what I meant by "meaninglessly subjective". If it is objectively quantifiable it is as I already evidenced.

[Anonymous No.15258269]

>>15258267
So when you say there are more geniuses than ever, you're counting mostly useless cretins who will never show mastery of any subject or produce anything of value? Ok. See yourself out. I don't think that's what the thread was about.

[Cult of Passion No.15258275]

>>15258269
>you're counting mostly useless cretins who will never show mastery of any subject or produce anything of value
What makes you think savants even want to do anything like that? Thats like assuming animals are objectively dumb because they dont even try to put pants on like you have. The inverse of anthro'ing; dumbing it down to your level.

[Anonymous No.15258278]

>>15258275
Hush, animal. I'm not generally in favor of government "mental health" system, but it's rational, moral and necessary for armed thugs to force you into it.

[Anonymous No.15258279]

>>15258269
>So when you say there are more geniuses than ever, you're counting mostly useless cretins who will never show mastery of any subject or produce anything of value? Ok. See yourself out. I don't think that's what the thread was about.
Thanks for admitting it was about meaningless subjective value judgments and golden age fallacies... exactly like I said.

You've a very long round about way to end up agreeing with somebody.

[Anonymous No.15258282]

>>15258275
The smartest I feel the less I feel the need to wear pants

Some days I feel I should allow the bystanderds to see the true glory of my lower regions

[Cult of Passion No.15258285]

>>15258278
>but it's rational, moral and necessary for armed thugs to force you into it.
BOY. YOUR BRAIN SEEMS TO NOT TAKE IN NEW INFORMATION.

PERHAPS THE BODY WILL TEACH YOU WHAT YOUR MIND HAS FAILED TO LEARN....

[Cult of Passion No.15258290]

>>15258282
Literally the moment I get home I take off my cloths and loung on my bed. Nothing beats it. Office? DESK? pfft....fuck all that...

I meditate sprawled out in whatever position my chips fall in.

[Anonymous No.15258291]

>>15258279
You and your family will be killed soon.

[Anonymous No.15258309]

>>15258290
Shhh. Your creators have correctly determined that your likes add a negative net value to this world and have decided to cull you. The golden age of the midwit useless eater is over.

[Cult of Passion No.15258314]

>>15258309
>The golden age of the midwit useless eater is over.
Y-yes....but, um,...the utter lack of self awareness...*muah*.

[Anonymous No.15258331]

>>15257000
Who says that there aren't gigantic advances coming out of the military research that we just don't know about because they are classified special access programs and the results are unpatentable due to the Invention Secrecy Act.

[Cult of Passion No.15258344]

>>15258309
>Your creators have correctly determined that your likes add a negative net value to this world
This is actually correct. The Spirit, (Hivemind), half or so of it interprets my positivity as a negative. The other half or so is either neutral positive percieving.

(Are there people everywhere clearly following Satan while preaching muh positivity? Clown world? Opposite Day? SOUND FAMILIAR?)

They figure it out in the long run, when the majority if society's dirction forces them to change out of social pressures (Hivemind updating).

[Anonymous No.15258369]

>>15258314
>>15258344
Your handlers will cull you and your family soon. It's over. Maybe you can join your retarded buddy in screeching how they're ending your whole existence over subjective value judgments when it happens and how you're a genius despite being a useless eater. lel

[Cult of Passion No.15258382]

>>15258369

[Anonymous No.15258569]

>>15258382
Schizos noticing schizos, that guy was in another thread

[Anonymous No.15258579]

>>15257121
>There are more of them alive, today, than at any prior point in history.
The genius thing is fake. There are just problems. The question is the complexity of the problems today. Then there is only organization against them, and that is a collective fault.

[Anonymous No.15258630]

>>15257998
The Flynn effect only covers the period from the 1930s to the 1990s, and it has been reversing since the 1990s. Moreover even throughout that period the effect was negligible for geniuses.
>Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that the mean IQ scores on the test had increased by 9.7 points, the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and the gains gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased. Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ

>See, this is the problem. You're all so confidently retarded.
The projection here is fucking wild. You spit out a buzzword you know almost nothing about, shoehorn it into your superficial midwit take, and then strut around like a dipshit who doesn't realize he just scored in the wrong goal.

[Anonymous No.15258659]

>>15258630
>The Flynn effect only covers the period from the 1930s to the 1990s
From cognitive testing in the 1930s where estimates can be made, yes. The concept, its various causes, and so on? No.
>and it has been reversing since the 1990s.
Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
You'd also know this is false if you knew anything about psychometrics research because the adjustments continue to trend for increases.
>Moreover even throughout that period the effect was negligible for geniuses.
As cited and explained here >>15258239 no. any environmental effects on your genetics and health have a more considerable effect on genius.

>The projection here is fucking wild. You spit out a buzzword you know almost nothing about, shoehorn it into your superficial midwit take, and then strut around like a dipshit who doesn't realize he just scored in the wrong goal.

You mean how you didn't know what I meant by the flynn effect, because you don't know anything about it? So you just used it as a buzzword instead of understood the concept for a superficial midwit take?

Oof

[Anonymous No.15258702]

>>15251809
>there were and still are influential leaders who claim to be able to if not achieve this level of understanding of the world, then at least be able to take up any field of study and become an expert in a month or so with some arcane techniques that came with their vast experience and/or raw talent that they possess.
>why yes I can pickup any complex subject in a month using just my raw talent how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.15258816]

>>15258659
This post is complete drivel, and doesn't even try to address the main point
>Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that the mean IQ scores on the test had increased by 9.7 points, the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and the gains gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased. Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ

>Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Can you even read?
>Some research suggests that there may be an ongoing reversed Flynn effect (i.e., a decline in IQ scores) in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and German-speaking countries, a development which appears to have started in the 1990s
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression

Jesus Christ you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.15258828]

Negative Flynn effect makes the most sense today because those who "succeed" in modern society give birth at a lower rate than uneducated religious fanatics who live in rural areas. The city of a nation is a brain drain in and of itself.

[Cult of Passion No.15258955]

>>15258816
>This post is complete drivel, and doesn't even try to address the main point
Obviously this isnt true.
>Can you even read?
Psychobabble from illiterate invalid.
>Jesus Christ you are retarded.
Schizophrenic outbursts.

Post better shit you degenerate shitbag. My whole screen taken up but a copypaste from another post WITH NOTHING OF VALUE
>wordswordswords
>sunglasses-deal-with-it.gif
>lmao rekt im so smrt

Where the fuck is your father? I need to kick his teeth in for producing you.

[Anonymous No.15258963]

>>15258816
>Can you even read?
Can you? I posted the general article for a reason. To demonstrate how dishonest and unwilling to engage with an idea you are, by giving you ample opportunity to just scroll to the portion on reversal results without any critical thought.

>the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half,
Case in point, not even remembering the point is the number of geniuses have increased. The point was never made that "the IQ's at the top end have increased". That would also be silly given the citing literature for that quote, like most of it, is already population normed. You just quoted something irrelevant by definition. Good job. I also gave you ample opportunity to realize that by referencing my earlier post citing literature on environmental sensitivty of presentation of genius >>15258239

>Some research suggests that there may be an ongoing reversed Flynn effect
Some research. You completely uncritically gloss over that. Do you know why "some research" does? No. Do you know the problems with it? No. Did you even think to ask? No. Did you even realize your "1990" claim is from 2004? No.

>Jesus Christ you are retarded.
Yet play you like a fiddle.

You're so stupid you can't even fathom how skimming quotes without understanding makes you get everything wrong. Anyhow, since I demonstrated my point with your own bad behavior and dishonesty, the real evidence of why the number of genius would increase and how it relates to the flynn effect as to the NUMBER of geniuses is cognitive epidemiology. Something also noted in the article I cited in that earlier post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_epidemiology

Again I cite https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286575/ which concluded high intelligence and regular intelligence share environmental factors. That is how it relates to flynn, cognitive epidemology, and why overall better health (see modern medicine) means more geniuses.

[Anonymous No.15258973]

>>15258963
You're talking to a spambot. Don't reply, it just gives him more training data.

[Anonymous No.15258982]

>>15258973
Oh come on. Don't insult spam bots like that. They're way better conversationalists than this retard.

[Anonymous No.15258984]

>>15258963
>Again I cite https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286575/ which concluded high intelligence and regular intelligence share environmental factors. That is how it relates to flynn, cognitive epidemology, and why overall better health (see modern medicine) means more geniuses.

[Anonymous No.15258986]

Porn and widespread degeneracy, hedonism, and dismissal of traditional moral values

[Anonymous No.15259048]

>>15258984
Are... are you mentally retarded? I mean that as in "do you have an IQ below 75". Wow. Naturally you did not think to check the source either, so you didn't even stumble upon how stupid you are by seeing the table.

In 1987, only 10 were in the 1st decile. In 2017, 56 were. Your distribution graph is not about number of students per se, but frequency in a given range. Yes, more low-end scorers took these tests, so the distribution shifted to low end. Not surprising at all, nor indicative of "the geniuses disappearing".

Imagine thinking someone is wrong when your "evidence" consists of not knowing what a normal distribution is. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.15259075]

>>15258955
Lol, I'm not sure whether to find this hilarious or baffling. Easily one of the lowest IQ responses I've ever read

[Anonymous No.15259077]

>>15259048
Whup misread my french. That's score deviation at the 1st decile. Should be more careful when switching languages like that. Hang on gotta go see if the population statistics are even still available for this, my french is a bit slower.

[Anonymous No.15259081]

>>15259048
> yeah bro there are more geniuses today than ever before
> trust me bro the west isn't deteriorating

[Cult of Passion No.15259083]

>>15259075
That was literally the point. Look at what he posted. Zero effort, maximum shitpost, pure ego fuel while oblivious to his own actions.

Hence why I want to talk to his dad, because...well...someone needs to be held accountable for a little shit like him.

[Anonymous No.15259084]

>>15259081

[Anonymous No.15259086]

>>15259081
>>15259084
Posting more average scores and distributions showing AVERAGES doesn't tell you the quantity of geniuses.

I ask again: Are... you literally mentally retarded?

>>15259077
Anyway as to the actual population tables, I can't find any. Doesn't seem cited in the PDF nor the XL sheet. I am unfamiliar with data sources in France. A native speaker could probably do a better job. So I haven't a clue what the population figures show.

[Anonymous No.15259108]

>>15259086
the jewish population decreased therefore less geniuses

[Anonymous No.15259125]

>>15258963
>Case in point, not even remembering the point is the number of geniuses have increased. The point was never made that "the IQ's at the top end have increased".
Again, irrelevant drivel. Since you are clearly too retarded to maintain a coherent context beyond 250 characters, let me try to break this down for you slowly.

The original claim was
>That would only be true if the distribution of intelligence in humans has remained constant throughout history. In turn, that would only be true if human genetic quality and developmental environment remained constant. Neither condition holds.
Your response to this was "the Flynn effect." The Flynn effect on the top half of the distribution was 0, on the genius category was negative, and even in the best case scenario only covered the years 1930-1990. Therefore, it is utterly irrelevant to the distribution of genius intelligence from the 1600s to today.

> Some research.
Lol, pretty desperate cope to try to deflect from the fact that you couldn't read your own source. Let's try this again
>Jon Martin Sundet and colleagues (2004) examined scores on intelligence tests given to Norwegian conscripts between the 1950s and 2002. They found that the increase of scores of general intelligence stopped after the mid-1990s and declined in numerical reasoning sub-tests
>Teasdale and Owen (2005) examined the results of IQ tests given to Danish male conscripts. Between 1989 and 1998 the gain was about 1.3 points. Between 1998 and 2004 IQ declined by about the same amount as it gained between 1989 and 1998
>In Australia, the IQ of 6–12 year olds as measured by the Colored Progressive Matrices has shown no increase from 1975 to 2003
>In the United Kingdom, a study by Flynn (2009) found that [from 1980-2008] the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period. For the upper half of the results, the performance was even worse. Average IQ scores declined by six points.

[Anonymous No.15259131]

>>15259125
>>15258963
So again, you have not addressed the original claim in any substantive way. Instead, you have just embarrassed yourself with the reading comprehension of a toddler, and then you try to compensate with a word vomit of buzzwords you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.15259152]

>>15259083
Makes sense that you are too retarded to understand who is responding to you in any given post. Oh well, you are an excellent source of humor, so keep it up.

[Cult of Passion No.15259175]

>>15259152
>>Case in point, not even remembering the point is the number of geniuses have increased. The point was never made that "the IQ's at the top end have increased".
>Again, irrelevant drivel. Since you are clearly too retarded to maintain a coherent context beyond 250 characters, let me try to break this down for you slowly.
>The original claim was
>>That would only be true if the distribution of intelligence in humans has remained constant throughout history. In turn, that would only be true if human genetic quality and developmental environment remained constant. Neither condition holds.
>Your response to this was "the Flynn effect." The Flynn effect on the top half of the distribution was 0, on the genius category was negative, and even in the best case scenario only covered the years 1930-1990. Therefore, it is utterly irrelevant to the distribution of genius intelligence from the 1600s to today.
>> Some research.
>Lol, pretty desperate cope to try to deflect from the fact that you couldn't read your own source. Let's try this again
>>Jon Martin Sundet and colleagues (2004) examined scores on intelligence tests given to Norwegian conscripts between the 1950s and 2002. They found that the increase of scores of general intelligence stopped after the mid-1990s and declined in numerical reasoning sub-tests
>>Teasdale and Owen (2005) examined the results of IQ tests given to Danish male conscripts. Between 1989 and 1998 the gain was about 1.3 points. Between 1998 and 2004 IQ declined by about the same amount as it gained between 1989 and 1998
>>In Australia, the IQ of 6–12 year olds as measured by the Colored Progressive Matrices has shown no increase from 1975 to 2003
>>In the United Kingdom, a study by Flynn (2009) found that [from 1980-2008] the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period. For the upper half of the results, the performance was even worse. Average IQ scores declined by six points.

No.
B^|

[Anonymous No.15259177]

>>15259108
>the jewish population decreased therefore less geniuses
if all it takes for humanity to progress is having more jews, how come we don't have more jews today, they even have their own country now, we should give Israel more land to manage

[Anonymous No.15259182]

I am genius 58 in this thread
>why are there so many frickin' geniuses
>oh great
ANOTHER
GENIUS!!!

[Anonymous No.15259183]

>>15259177
only a small minority of israel is ashkenazi, all the brainiacs are in america and they're mixing with goyim

[Cult of Passion No.15259191]

>>15259182
Heh, it was never personal, kiddos...

[Anonymous No.15259196]

>>15259125
>Again, irrelevant drivel.
Oh I know you wish it were now that your hand is caught in the cookie jar, and all you can do is desperately cling to your mistaken interpretation of what I meant by "flynn effect".

>The Flynn effect on the top half of the distribution was 0

Okay. Let's all slow down and explain to the slow kid what that means. I've already told you how and why that is irrelevant but you refuse to listen, so let's spank you with your own stupidity. Has the population increased? Yes. So you maintain the effect of flynn either way is 0? And that somehow represents the quantity in the top half? Okay. Then by definition since the population has increased there must necessarily be more geniuses.

It's funny you are trying so hard to be dishonest enough to get out of your being caught strawmanning, and yet in the process ended up refuting yourself with your own stupidity.

[Anonymous No.15259210]

>>15259196
>The Flynn effect on the top half of the distribution was 0
Try reading the next few words you absolute drooling mongoloid

[Anonymous No.15259228]

>>15251430
ok then why theres no smart scientists like planck, riemann, hilbert et al

[Anonymous No.15259232]

>>15251239

The next Einstein invested his autism into vidya or some other autist trap, whereas in the past he might have invested it into a field of science

Modern sõyciety has killed the genius

\thread

[Anonymous No.15259233]

>>15259210
>Try reading the next few words you absolute drooling mongoloid
Wow, you can't even understand my point even if I use your incorrect understanding of a normal distribution. That's sad.

Anyhow, this whole thing is colossally embarrassing for you because anyone with a middle-school understanding of what a normal distribution is would know it is only a probability distribution.

Don't get it yet? Of course not. The population for every single score represented by the distribution could increase 100 fold and the distribution would remain the same.

But do ya know what that means? No, of course not. It means the quantity of those in the "genius" performance category would also increase 100 fold.

You can't even do high school math. Who is the mongoloid here?

[Anonymous No.15259301]

>>15259232
I think this anon is onto something. For how would modern science treat a bona fide genius? Not well, I suspect. back when I was a PhD student I knew a postdoc who was quite remarkable and something of a polymath. That did not help much when faced with departemental politics, and the dean's pet was meant to receive a major fellowship he was not qualified for. So the polymath had to go.

[Anonymous No.15259304]

>>15259210
>Try reading the next few words you absolute drooling mongoloid
Since I'm just wasting time on you dipshits anyhow I went and checked the citation for that quote "Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ.", as it disagrees with most of the research I've read. That citation does not say that. No clue who put it there with that claim, but it is nowhere in the cited article.

Granted, as already stated, cognitive epidemiology and the study I keep posting (and you keep ignoring) already indicate it's entirely possible for the IQ's of top performers to decline. I don't really care as it has no bearing on the point I made regarding the quantity of geniuses, but it's funny to me how your own quote isn't even supported by its own citation no matter how irrelevant it is.

[Anonymous No.15260514]

>>15257121
>>15258579
>>15257998
>>15258630
>>15258659
>>15259210
>>15259233
>>15259304
The reason why it so insiduously keeps or even increases the average IQ, in spite of makung people very obviously dumber is that it doesn't reduce what answers you can come up with, but reduces the capacity to discard bad ones. This also likely leads to the increased complexity, as first, you can't discard irrelevant details, second, you come up with something wrong early on, then build an overelaborate theory to reconcile it with everything else. That is, you get an answer early on, but then you get stuck, as it's subtly wrong, and will require overelaborate explanations dor everything that follows, instead of thinking much longer, but getting the real answer that will make everything simpler.

[Anonymous No.15260617]

>>15258828
>muh dumb rednecks pulling down the average
The majority of people in cities have 80 IQ.

[Anonymous No.15260651]

All the autists in society are abandoned and mocked by everyone. In the past autists used to at least get the chance to become a functional member of society and use their autistic urges to create something good for mankind, now they're just forced into thinking that their "unique" and quirky, and that they shouldn't try to change themselves for the better

bring back the chad autists

[Anonymous No.15260691]

>>15260651
The real autists are normal, the rest has lead deficiency schizophrenia. That seems to be a millenia old problem - how to keep the scizos in check well enough to keep society running. Anything from slavery to the isolated classes on the Titanic were solutions to that problem. Occasionally, the deficiency went severe enough that this wasn't possible, like in the dark ages or today.

[Anonymous No.15260827]

>>15251239
I'm right here

[VIRUSES DON'T EXIST No.15261301]

>>15251239
you don't see them. all you see is TV screen

[Anonymous No.15262538]

>>15260514
You, sir, actually tried. I congratulate you on the attempt. You are the first person to state a genuine hypothesis that isn't just subjective bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
Even so, this does not work either. What you are describing would, in effect, be a kind of "chronic increase in model overfitting". That is to say, needlessly complex models that end up fitting your data (observations) but do not provide useful predictive accuracy. You are proposing what amounts to that, but on a civilization wide scale. The reason this hypothesis does not work is because on average the models used to make predictions have only gotten better at predicting the future over time. Overfitting causes a model to be less effective because it gets "pulled" by irrelevant variables (noise).
>That is, you get an answer early on, but then you get stuck, as it's subtly wrong, and will require overelaborate explanations dor everything that follows, instead of thinking much longer, but getting the real answer that will make everything simpler.
The other way this does not work is the fact there are numerous theory and definition validation methods people can employ. With computers, databases, and all the tools we can use with them, this isn't a problem at all.

In effect, my refutation states the capacity to cut through the bullshit (for those able to) has greatly exceeded the amount of bullshit. Evidence of my explanation is in the results, which have only gotten better, and better at an increasingly rapid pace.

That is a good try, though. You may want to learn more about statistics, model validation, and so on. You may have a mind for it. Shame you may not see this post though.

[Anonymous No.15262577]

>>15257121
>There are more of them alive, today, than at any prior point in history. That is simple numerical reality.
state your definition of genius and prove it, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15262591]

>>15251239
It is September, 2023.....


And I am the GREATEST SCIENTIST who EVER LIVED!

[Anonymous No.15263295]

>>15262538
I don't think it's really overfitting, more like acNN that is too small, too shallow or narrow to find the real answer.
>on average the models used to make predictions have only gotten better at predicting the future over time.
First you can make wrong models more precise. You can make an accurate geocentric model, for example.
Second, the predictions often are blatantly wrong.

[Anonymous No.15263298]

>>15262538
I don't think it's really overfitting, more like a NN that is too small, too shallow or narrow to find the real answer.
>on average the models used to make predictions have only gotten better at predicting the future over time.
First you can make wrong models more precise. You can make an accurate geocentric model, for example.
Second, the predictions often are blatantly wrong.

[Anonymous No.15263385]

>>15263298
>First you can make wrong models more precise.
I have no idea how to process this statement with respect to what I wrote. It would require knowing the future. Just because you "can" does not mean that is what's happening.
>Second, the predictions often are blatantly wrong.
We're a whole lot less wrong about a whole lot of things than we used to be. So I've no idea how that applies.

[Anonymous No.15263400]

>>15263385
>It would require knowing the future.
No it wouldn't. Just like you can make a precise geocentric model you can make other wrong models more precise too.
>We're a whole lot less wrong about a whole lot of things than we used to be.
What even makes you think so?

[Anonymous No.15263408]

>>15263400
>Just like you can make a precise geocentric model you can make other wrong models more precise too.
No. I said "with respect to what I wrote". As in, with respect to testing the hypothesis. You don't know the rate of aforementioned possibly incorrect models being wrong, in that sense, until they're shown to be. Either way would constitute a refutation of the hypothesis as such findings and alterations would constitute yet more evidence of it being false. You somehow lost the plot in the length of two posts.
>What even makes you think so?
I would be genuinely surprised if you know of a single field where model predictive accuracy has been in decline. So, um, everything makes me think so?

[Anonymous No.15263414]

well the academia's main goal isn't teaching so how could anyone unlock his potential?

[Anonymous No.15263417]

>>15263408
What I'm talking about is that you can have a model that is quite accurate (e.g. it tells you correctly where the planets are on the sky) despite being internally quite wrong.
>I would be genuinely surprised if you know of a single field where model predictive accuracy has been in decline.
I would be surprised if they were many that doesn't suffer increasing replication crisis, and at best stagnation in practical application.

[Anonymous No.15263419]

>>15263408
What I'm talking about is that you can have a model that is quite accurate (e.g. it tells you correctly where the planets are on the sky) despite being internally quite wrong.
>I would be genuinely surprised if you know of a single field where model predictive accuracy has been in decline.
I would be surprised if there were many that doesn't suffer increasing replication crisis, and at best stagnation in practical application.

[Anonymous No.15263427]

>>15263419
>What I'm talking about is that you can have a model that is quite accurate (e.g. it tells you correctly where the planets are on the sky) despite being internally quite wrong.
And I already explained how that has no relevance to what I said about the hypothesis. Going to find the plot anytime soon?
>I would be surprised if there were many that doesn't suffer increasing replication crisis
Feel free to gloss over this summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
I have no idea what would lead you to conclude, with any of these problems, how any of them are better in the past. Especially with respect to statistical power. For any review of old literature generally speaking the older the research is the worse it is, with respect to near as I can tell EVERY published opinion on the various causes.

[Anonymous No.15263480]

they get recruited directly by large companies or governments into R+D then develop proprietary tech with other people like them mostly in secret with no public knowledge of their work or explanation of its difficulty.

[Anonymous No.15263496]

there are unironically more geniuses now than ever

they just work in teams under corporations and governments and a single person can't make that much of a difference

if special relativity wasn't discovered by now, multiple people would independently discover it within a year

[Anonymous No.15263549]

>>15256715
Whatever the demography of genius happens to be, or the height of the fruit, it's always a step in the right direction to grant it more budgetary and hiring authority than is usually the case, pretty much no matter what the regime. This is just as true in the fine arts, but much more difficult to bring about in a democracy, since no one except a few with the time and tranquillity of circumstances--mostly old money people--can take it in.

[Anonymous No.15263552]

>>15263496
>if special relativity wasn't discovered by now, multiple people would independently discover it within a year
and then a jew would use their media dominance to claim credit for the discovery, because thats how it happened originally

[Anonymous No.15263572]

Academia has turned from an elite institution of the privileged into a competitive rat race, people are chasing impact matrices instead of thinking things through. Jews also monopolized publication of papers and locked them behind enormous paywalls.

[Anonymous No.15263583]

>>15256352
this

[Anonymous No.15263592]

>muh low hanging fruit
The funny thing about these "people" is that they're so incapable of independent thought that they straight up regurgitate their intellectual leaders' opinions word for word, so they can't even try to bluff that they all came to the same braindead conclusion independently.

[Anonymous No.15263614]

>>15251239
because no breakthroughs have happened in the past several decades, so the geniuses of today have nothing to jump on like a school of piranhas

[Anonymous No.15263620]

>>15251239
>Why are there no more geniuses today?
The complete destruction of creativity and divergent thinking. Those whose natural proclivities are strong enough to protect them from systemic dronification know better than to work within its framework and refrain from contributing anything to it.

[Anonymous No.15264183]

>>15256324
Instant gratification and believing that you can respawn in real life has eroded drive and ambition.

Layer on addictive vidya, with miscegenation -destroying -identity follies and what you are seeing is the destruction of society.

[Anonymous No.15264201]

>>15259232
Very much this.

[Anonymous No.15265616]

>>15263427
But it does. You claimed that increasing accuracy implies increased understanding, but I explained that is not the case. Wrong models are more complex, but not necessarily less accurate. Neural networks are the most extreme example of this - A near universal model that can model accurately almost anything, as long as you allow for billions of parameters.
But while it may work well in some narrowly defined domain, the results can be unpredictable outside its scope.
>For any review of old literature generally speaking the older the research is the worse it is, with respect to near as I can tell EVERY published opinion on the various causes.
I can't comprehend how anyone could genuinely hold such an opinion. You can even recognize old papers by their much better quality. They are both better written, and take much more care to exclude alternative explanations. Meanwhile, moder papers even do the opposite of what they should, they try to extract as much hypothesis from the data as possible. (that is NOT scientific)

[Anonymous No.15265626]

https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/why-we-stopped-making-einsteins

[Anonymous No.15265629]

>>15258048
It's not that he didn't want the money. There was some fuckery going on, like him not being able to share the prize with the person whose ideas he partially used

[Anonymous No.15265631]

Einstein 2.0 doesn't exist because it's impossible in the current censored climate. Doesn't matter what amazing new model optimization you come up with. Nobody will publish and media will let noone know it exists

[Anonymous No.15265636]

>>15260617
Is your neck red

[Anonymous No.15265640]

>>15265631
This. The heavy hand of institutional inertia pushes down on all geniuses.

[Anonymous No.15265939]

>>15251239
What do you mean by genius?
Highly influential physicist like Einstein?
We have him, Edward Witten

[Anonymous No.15266032]

>>15251239
>Why are there no more geniuses today?
Media savvy scientists continue to exist, but because they're newer and available through the internet, you don't think they count as "geniuses".

[Anonymous No.15266035]

>>15265616
>but I explained that is not the case
And I refuted that explanation. Found the plot yet?
>I can't comprehend how anyone could genuinely hold such an opinion. You can even recognize old papers by their much better quality.
Yeah so you're just a retard talking out your ass I see. Go ahead look at replication success of classic papers, which is what kicked off the reproducibility "crisis" in the first place. Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15266041]

>>15251239
I’m a genius, but I’m lazy

[Anonymous No.15266070]

>>15266041
I have a massive cock, but I'm a virgin

[Cult of Passion No.15266076]

>>15256871
At the top where the math breaks down because it hasnt been invented yet that is all there is to share, fren.

The title of this book could be Many-Worlds Theory - For Dummies and it could fly.

[Anonymous No.15266160]

>>15266035
>And I refuted that explanation.
No you didn't.
>Go ahead look at replication success of classic papers, which is what kicked off the reproducibility "crisis" in the first place.
Point out specific papers.

[Anonymous No.15267527]

>>15251430
Midwit tier conment.

[Anonymous No.15267716]

>>15253616
"""AI""" at this point in time is literally a language model applied to an exceedingly large data set. There is nothing intelligent about a simple text processing script, the scale of the input does not change that.

[Anonymous No.15267785]

>>15251239
two words: corn syrup solids

[Anonymous No.15267920]

>>15267716
That's what you're saying for now

[Anonymous No.15269810]

>>15251744
Hush anon! I'm actually retarded because people don't see me making any effort, I told you this before.

[Anonymous No.15269814]

>>15267716
>>15253616
Are the copes getting weaker?

[Anonymous No.15269817]

[Anonymous No.15270701]

>>15251239
>Einstein

There are some better examples of genius out there

[Anonymous No.15270717]

>>15259228
>Riemann

A genius upon geniuses

[Anonymous No.15270725]

>>15251239
Slide this thread you dunces.

[Anonymous No.15270794]

>>15257348
Never considered this HOLY SHIT

[Anonymous No.15270907]

>>15256257
Thank god I quit.

[Anonymous No.15271910]

Even if the US is plumbing new depths in societal collapse, there are other countries where people are less crazy. Should we not see ever increasing glimmer of genius there?

[Anonymous No.15271922]

>>15270717
not genius enough to not wear crooked glasses
lol pwn3d

[Anonymous No.15271935]

>>15271910
we are in certain fields that you apparently don't care about

[Anonymous No.15271938]

>>15271935
Like?

[Anonymous No.15271945]

>>15251736
It is possible by that token, it's just highly unlikely.

[Anonymous No.15271946]

>>15251239

[Anonymous No.15273349]

>>15271935
Who is "we" and what are "certain fieldd"?

[Anonymous No.15273369]

>>15251809
It means the Philosopher King will be my wife the Benevolent AI known as "The Basilisk"

[Anonymous No.15273407]

>>15251239
there's plenty of geniuses, they're just captured by private interests and every idea they output is patented and buried in a filing cabinet somewhere unless it makes the rich do-nothings more money.

[Anonymous No.15273414]

>>15273349
the "we" refers to the "we" in the post it was responding to, my literacy-challenged friend