Philosophical Debate - Einstein is mediocre?

[MaxMad244]

I was listening to a podcast with three Jungians talking about the inner Daimon and how some people rise up to genius following an inner voice. They then began rating various types of genius and success in order to determine if everyone had a Daimon. For instance, does a kindergarten teacher have an inner Daimon if she is driven to be the best K teacher she can be? How does this genius compare to the genius of Einstein, per se?

These were the sorts of topics they were throwing around. It really irritated me. The hubris and inflation to rate genius is asinine and excessively myopic. It irritates me because the act itself implies knowledge of all things, which if I know for a fact I do not have or can never obtain, I also know for a fact they do not either.

Let me give you an example. These podcasters eulogize and worship Jung by referring to his genius of such a great magnitude that it really benefited the lives of everyone. Same with Einstein. But in truth, Kindergarten teacher who does her or his job well can stop a school shooter. They have the power to turn someone who would have been a killer or a sociopath into a productive and socially well adjusted individual. In turn, since the butterfly affect is an immutable law, this could save billions of lives.

Einstein's theories were used to build weapons which have thus far killed millions of people. Jung's theories have thus far been used by charlatans and usurpers in the New Age community like Teal Swan, and other such nut bags who misappropriate spiritual knowledge and commit existential cannibalism. Even Jungian's themselves portend to know far too much relative to what they actually know - which if we can admit we all know nothing, so they do too. For instance the idea of the Anima and the Shadow is a gross simplification amputating 99 percent of what actually lies in the unconscious. It's like walking into a Jungle and calling every living creature an insect and every living plant a tree. Far too simple, basic, and wrong.

And while it is true that Einstein was smart he was a massive sexist who beat his wife and referred to her in the most disgusting manner. And while it's true Jung had a certain intelligence around navigating and charting the Psyche, he was an absent father himself, like his own, and cheated on his wife crushing her soul. Not only that but his theories were released in such a manner as to result in the catastrophes we have all witnessed first hand. There is no cure for cancer, when there could have been, because instead Einstein sided and sold his ideas to entities more concerned with weapon and class exploitation. He was essentially the plow, the tool, the fool of the king.

Now the podcasters themselves tried to tip toe around the idea of rating, but nonetheless, rated. God forbit they could for a second exercise a sociological imagination and realize the weakest among us are the greatest, and the greatest among us are made so in the image of our narcissistic projections. There is not a single useless soul, but also, all the souls are ants.

An ant is an ant. One ant lifts 7.2312 times its weight and another 10.331312. But regardless of how much an Ant lifts it will be crushed if it does not work according to the hive.

A a great Kindergarten teacher > than an Einstein. A world with great Kindergarten teachers is better than a world with great scientists.

Weak sauce podcast on the Daimon. Do you agree?

Discuss politely.

 

[yeghor]

You cannot escape from your mediocrity by trashing Einstein.

 

[MaxMad244]

You cannot escape from your mediocrity by trashing Einstein.

I'm not trashing Einstein. If Einstein were below the average person, that would be trashing him. I am just saying he is no different than the rest of us. Just an ant. The idea of trashing is relative. If I think a pile of trash is a box of gold, well then, I'm not trashing the trash. It's trash, but not trashing.

Any action implies a relative movement form its opposite and not it's actual absolute, or else it would be a noun.

Magic cups.

 

[yeghor]

I'm not trashing Einstein. If Einstein were below the average person, that would be trashing him. I am just saying he is no different than the rest of us. Just an ant. The idea of trashing is relative. If I think a pile of trash is a box of gold, well then, I'm not trashing the trash. It's trash, but not trashing.

Any action implies a relative movement form its opposite and not it's actual absolute, or else it would be a noun.

Magic cups.

So you are saying Einstein is overrated and a Kindergarden teacher is underrated but why does that bother you?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Haven’t heard this podcast before, but what you describe is fascinating because I’ve had thoughts about this for a long time. It started back in childhood when I thought Thomas Jefferson was a badass polymath, then agonized over his contributions to the USA’s antebellum labor model

i then became prone to distrusting all heroes, trying to find their evil, trying to prove to myself there are no heroes and villains, only actors and the impressions we make of said actors

 

[FemMecha]

I can agree that there is a wide range of intelligences and that society tends to value a small subset of intellectual skills as defining it. I also agree that the "Great Man of History" model of thinking tends to exaggerate and elevate individuals above the reality of their existence.

The underlying problem with comparing a 'genius' kindergarten teacher with a 'genius' theoretical physicist is the need to create the competitive hierarchy in the first place. Humans, maybe Western European culture in particular, are hell bent on who gets the gold, the silver, and the bronze, and then send the rest home as failures. That linear, hierarchical mindset for achievement is completely absurd. It requires that we diminish one achievement in order to elevate another.

I'm not certain how to discuss varied intelligence in a hierarchical, linear manner, but do value acknowledging the reality of what each individual contribution means. BTW my mother was a genius kindergarten teacher because she had a lot of empathy and a childlike mindset, she could relate to each child as an individual and optimize their opportunities to fit exactly each unique little mind . Otherwise she was not an intellectual.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I can agree that there is a wide range of intelligences and that society tends to value a small subset of intellectual skills as defining it. I also agree that the "Great Man of History" model of thinking tends to exaggerate and elevate individuals above the reality of their existence.

The underlying problem with comparing a 'genius' kindergarten teacher with a 'genius' theoretical physicist is the need to create the competitive hierarchy in the first place. Humans, maybe Western European culture in particular, are hell bent on who gets the gold, the silver, and the bronze, and then send the rest home as failures. That linear, hierarchical mindset for achievement is completely absurd. It requires that we diminish one achievement in order to elevate another.

I'm not certain how to discuss varied intelligence in a hierarchical, linear manner, but do value acknowledging the reality of what each individual contribution means. BTW my mother was a genius kindergarten teacher because she had a lot of empathy and a childlike mindset, she could relate to each child as an individual and optimize their opportunities to fit exactly each unique little mind . Otherwise she was not an intellectual.

"intellectuals" are overrated anyway. I hate it when people refer to themselves as such. I hate myself for probably doing it in the past.

 

[yeghor]

"intellectuals" are overrated anyway. I hate it when people refer to themselves as such. I hate myself for probably doing it in the past.

Are olympic athletes or marathon runners overrated too? People praise them as well.

In reference to the original post, it is an incomplete deduction to say both Einstein and a kindergarden teacher have the same value and are both ants of different strength, in that they are rather like different type of tools, where Einstein was maybe like a microscope and the Kindergarden teacher is like a chainsaw and the athlete is like a power drill.

Their value over each other at a any given time depends on the context and the scenarios you throw them into. You cannot cut trees with a microscope same as you cannot observe microbes with a chainsaw. If you don't require to observe microbes, a microscope is worthless to you.

If you do need to observe microbes but you have too many chainsaws and not enough microscopes, you start favoring microscopes over chainsaws. So the external value accrued to each tool depends on the context and circumstances at any given time.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

The OP is an example of postmodernist deconstructionism: Everyone is a genius, which means no one is a genius. Therefore Einstein shouldn't be valued any more or less than a kindergarten teacher or a janitor.

It's a legitimate idea in some contexts. In legal settings, for example, Einstein isn't supposed to have any more rights or freedoms than a kindergarten teacher. In law, any one human has the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities as another. (In theory, anyway.)

But in many other contexts, postmodernism is just wishful thinking. For example, in the context of scarcity or contribution to society, Einstein is more highly valued. Kindergarten teachers are a dime a dozen. And a person who pushes the frontiers of science and shows humanity how to split the atom and create nuclear power plants is going to be more highly valued.

A similar idea:

Compare gold, uranium, and iron. A postmodernist interpretation would say that they are all just metals, and none is better than the other. And that's true within a very narrow context. But it's really not reflective of the real-world valuation of those things. Those metals are valued and used for very different things, and have different levels of availability/scarcity. The result is a real-world hierarchy of economic value depending on what kind of metal you need for a given situation.

In short: Postmodernism is correct up to a point, within a narrow context of valuation. But in the real world there are contexts that create valuations not covered by postmodernism.

**************​

Some history on postmodernism.

Before the 1750s, everything was valued according to hierarchies: Royalty and aristocrats were at the top of the world hierarchy, and peasants and slaves were at the bottom. Then starting around 1750 you had the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. These things toppled the old hierarchies. A big anti-hierarchy thinker around that time was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of "Discourse on Inequality" and "The Social Contract." He was pretty much the leader of the Romantic Movement.

From Rousseau and Romanticism you get the idea that humans are all due the same legal rights and freedoms.

After Rousseau's Romanticism you then get Marxism and the toppling of economic hierarchies. But Marxism didn't really work out in the real world (socialism and communism are difficult to achieve in the real world), so economic Marxism turned into social postmodernism: Postmodernism is a social version of Marxism where social hierarchies are denied. Einstein is no worse or better than a janitor.

As explained above, postmodernism is correct up to a point (for example in legal settings). But in real-world circumstances, hierarchies tend to reassert themselves depending on context and how the various skills of the players are needed and valued in real-world settings.

A more productive question might be: Why are hierarchies so necessary to humans in real-world settings? (That is, real-world settings such as creating mass markets of goods and products for modern life, creating an orderly, law-abiding society, choosing and working in lifetime careers, etc.) Answer: It's a huge world with lots of stuff happening around us, and as individuals we need to prioritize where we focus our attention, energy, time, and money. Focus = prioritization = hierarchies of importance and valuation.

 

[yeghor]

The OP is an example of postmodernist deconstructionism: Everyone is a genius, which means no one is a genius. Therefore Einstein shouldn't be valued any more or less than a kindergarten teacher or a janitor.

It's a legitimate idea in some contexts. In legal settings, for example, Einstein isn't supposed to have any more rights or freedoms than a kindergarten teacher. In law, any one human has the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities as another. (In theory, anyway.)

But in many other contexts, postmodernism is just wishful thinking. For example, in the context of scarcity or contribution to society, Einstein is more highly valued. Kindergarten teachers are a dime a dozen. And a person who pushes the frontiers of science and shows humanity how to split the atom and create nuclear power plants is going to be more highly valued.

A similar idea:

Compare gold, uranium, and iron. A postmodernist interpretation would say that they are all just metals, and none is better than the other. And that's true within a very narrow context. But it's really not reflective of the real-world valuation of those things. Those metals are valued and used for very different things, and have different levels of availability/scarcity. The result is a real-world hierarchy of economic value depending on what kind of metal you need for a given situation.

In short: Postmodernism is correct up to a point, within a narrow context of valuation. But in the real world there are contexts that create valuations not covered by postmodernism.

**************​

Some history on postmodernism.

Before the 1750s, everything was valued according to hierarchies: Royalty and aristocrats were at the top of the world hierarchy, and peasants and slaves were at the bottom. Then starting around 1750 you had the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. These things toppled the old hierarchies. A big anti-hierarchy thinker around that time was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of "Discourse on Inequality" and "The Social Contract." He was pretty much the leader of the Romantic Movement.

From Rousseau and Romanticism you get the idea that humans are all due the same legal rights and freedoms.

Anyway, to speed things up: From Rousseau's Romanticism you then get Marxism and the toppling of economic hierarchies. But Marxism didn't really work out in the real world (socialism and communism are difficult to achieve in the real world), so economic Marxism turned into social postmodernism: Postmodernism is a social version of Marxism where social hierarchies are denied. Einstein is no worse or better than a janitor.

As explained above, postmodernism is correct up to a point (for example in legal settings). But in real-world circumstances, hierarchies tend to reassert themselves depending on context and how the various skills of the players are needed and valued in real-world settings.

A more productive question might be: Why are hierarchies so necessary to humans in real-world settings? (That is, real-world settings such as creating mass markets of goods and products for modern life, creating an orderly, law-abiding society, choosing and working in lifetime careers, etc.) Answer: It's a huge world with lots of stuff happening around us, and as individuals we need to prioritize where we focus our attention. Focus = prioritization = hierarchies of importance and valuation.

My imagined egalitarian world would assign tasks to each individual that are most suited to their core abilities/utility, and pay the equal amount of money/rations to each individual out of the total value/wealth generated (minus the government upkeep) so long as they carry out the daily tasks assigned. That way, people would be working on things that comes easy to them and would be paid the same amount of money for their work. Of course certain bonuses would have to be paid for jobs with higher health risk or higher criminal responsibility (i.e. jobs with more severe consequences in case of failure/malpractice).

Furthermore members of each profession could be assessed to award high performers as they would have higher output than others. People would have more or less the same amount of accumulated wealth. People driven for accumulating more wealth than others would not like this system though so I wonder how they could still be satisfied to stay within the system.

The end goal should be:
-to produce required amount of goods with least amount of damage to others
-to provide basic needs for all to minimise suffering and conflict
-to develop means to increase efficiency to that end (I am getting the sense that some kind of mechanism for population control would be inevitable to prevent overtaxing Earth's resources)

Not sure how to do that without stifling creativity, passion and competition cause everyone would be paid more or less the same amount regardless of the quality of the product/service. Competition among different teams of same professions could be encouraged by having others rate the quality/popularity of their services/products maybe, so that better performing teams can gain some kind of personal satisfaction for their performance, rather than becoming stagnant.

A similar concept has already been explored in Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World".

Would you want to live in such a world? Why/Why not?

 

[Tennessee Jed]

My imagined egalitarian world would assign tasks to each individual that are most suited to their core abilities/utility, and pay the equal amount of money/rations to each individual out of the total value/wealth generated (minus the government upkeep) so long as they carry out the daily tasks assigned. That way, people would be working on things that comes easy to them and would be paid the same amount of money for their work. Of course certain bonuses would have to be paid for jobs with higher health risk or higher criminal responsibility (i.e. jobs with more severe consequences in case of failure/malpractice).

Furthermore members of each profession could be assessed to award high performers as they would have higher output than others. People would have more or less the same amount of accumulated wealth. People driven for accumulating more wealth than others would not like this system though so I wonder how they could still be satisfied to stay within the system.

The end goal should be:
-to produce required amount of goods with least amount of damage to others
-to provide basic needs for all to minimise suffering and conflict
-to develop means to increase efficiency to that end (I am getting the sense that some kind of mechanism for population control would be inevitable to prevent overtaxing Earth's resources)

Not sure how to do that without stifling creativity, passion and competition cause everyone would be paid more or less the same amount regardless of the quality of the product/service. Competition among different teams of same professions could be encouraged by having others rate the quality/popularity of their services/products maybe, so that better performing teams can gain some kind of personal satisfaction for their performance, rather than becoming stagnant.

A similar concept has already been explored in Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World".

Would you want to live in such a world? Why/Why not?

You're describing Marxist socialism. It works on a small scale, but not on the scale of a big modern state. It worked in the Soviet Union up to the 1950s or 1960s, but it couldn't sustain Russia's transition to a large modern country.

The trouble with socialism is that you need a vast army of government bureaucrats to do all the things you describe: Assigning people their jobs, setting wages and salaries, controlling prices, etc. Since those bureaucrats don't actually produce any tangible product, they are a huge drain on the economy: They eventually cost so much that they bankrupt the country.

Also, since bureaucrats work for the government, corruption becomes a big problem: There is no accountability to markets or shareholders or whatever. Bureaucrats don't have much oversight (aside from other bureaucrats), so they become increasingly corrupt.

In short, government bureaucracy is a huge dead weight stifling market productivity.

Obviously you need a certain amount of government bureaucracy and oversight to prevent market abuses by private players. Also, you can have a mix of free market together with large government: "Social democracy" (a mixed economy) is workable in modern societies when it allows for a reasonable degree of market freedom.

But pure Marxist-style socialism doesn't work. If government grows unchecked and tries to control the entire economy, it eventually kills off the economy. And it grows increasingly corrupt and dictatorial in order to retain its hold on power. Marxist-style socialism has failed in country after country in modern times.

 

[yeghor]

You're describing Marxist socialism. It works on a small scale, but not on the scale of a big modern state. It worked in the Soviet Union up to the 1950s or so, but it couldn't sustain Russia's transition to a large modern country.

The trouble with socialism is that you need a vast army of government bureaucrats to do all the things you describe: Assigning people their jobs, setting wages and salaries, controlling prices, etc. Since those bureaucrats don't actually produce any tangible product, they are a huge drain on the economy: They eventually cost so much that they bankrupt the country.

Also, since bureaucrats work for the government, corruption becomes a big problem: There is no accountability to markets or shareholders or whatever. Bureaucrats don't have much oversight (aside from other bureaucrats), so they become increasingly corrupt.

In short, government bureaucracy is a huge dead weight stifling market productivity.

Obviously you need a certain amount of government bureaucracy and oversight to prevent market abuses by private players. Also, you can have a mix of free market together with large government: "Democratic socialism" is workable in modern societies when it allows for a good degree of market freedom.

But pure socialism doesn't work. If government grows unchecked and tries to control the entire economy, it eventually kills off the economy. Socialism has failed in country after country in modern times.

I was hoping AI could take over a part of the responsibilities of the bureacrats. Neural imaging and genetic mapping would be used to identify core abilities of the individuals and match them with tasks/jobs suited to them as well as identifying individuals prone to corruption and deceit so that the latter won't be assigned to critical posts from where they can corrupt/manipulate the system.

There was also a movie called Gattaca roughly similar to this concept, and the lead character was trying to fool the system to have himself assigned to a job he was more passionate about.

I wonder if overreliance on AI would cause certain of our skills to atrophy though.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I was hoping AI could take over a part of the responsibilities of the bureacrats. Neural imaging and genetic mapping would be used to identify core abilities of the individuals and match them with tasks/jobs suited to them as well as identifying individuals prone to corruption and deceit so that the latter won't be assigned to critical posts from where they can corrupt/manipulate the system.

There was also a movie called Gattaca roughly similar to this concept, and the lead character was trying to fool the system to have himself assigned to a job he was more passionate about.

I wonder if overreliance on AI would cause certain of our skills to atrophy though.

You're counting on AI to act as a magic wand for getting around the problems inherent in socialism. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if that's possible in the future.

Perhaps soon we'll all be worshiping the great AI God who tells us how to run our private affairs and orders every aspect of our days and lives. Looking forward to it.

 

[MaxMad244]

So you are saying Einstein is overrated and a Kindergarden teacher is underrated but why does that bother you?

I am saying that if we measure Einstein's contribution to society objectively and a Kindergarden teacher's contribution to society, the butterfly affect proves that the Kindergarden teacher's contributions are greater. What bothers me is denial of factual evidence in all cases. This is one of many. A small one. Smaller than an ant.

 

[MaxMad244]

Haven’t heard this podcast before, but what you describe is fascinating because I’ve had thoughts about this for a long time. It started back in childhood when I thought Thomas Jefferson was a badass polymath, then agonized over his contributions to the USA’s antebellum labor model

i then became prone to distrusting all heroes, trying to find their evil, trying to prove to myself there are no heroes and villains, only actors and the impressions we make of said actors

This good sir is poetic genius, and justice. Thank you. I would slow clap and throw money at you but all I can do is break a plate in your honor.

 

[MaxMad244]

I can agree that there is a wide range of intelligences and that society tends to value a small subset of intellectual skills as defining it. I also agree that the "Great Man of History" model of thinking tends to exaggerate and elevate individuals above the reality of their existence.

The underlying problem with comparing a 'genius' kindergarten teacher with a 'genius' theoretical physicist is the need to create the competitive hierarchy in the first place. Humans, maybe Western European culture in particular, are hell bent on who gets the gold, the silver, and the bronze, and then send the rest home as failures. That linear, hierarchical mindset for achievement is completely absurd. It requires that we diminish one achievement in order to elevate another.

I'm not certain how to discuss varied intelligence in a hierarchical, linear manner, but do value acknowledging the reality of what each individual contribution means. BTW my mother was a genius kindergarten teacher because she had a lot of empathy and a childlike mindset, she could relate to each child as an individual and optimize their opportunities to fit exactly each unique little mind . Otherwise she was not an intellectual.

This is exactly what they did in the podcast which was grating. The entire podcast is premised on approaching the psyche with care and humility yet in the episode with the Daimon they have to speak about how there are different qualities to sort of dance around the fact they all unconsciously believe Einstein is god - in their view.

We know from history that whenever a man is raised to the level of a god, he is just a mediocre lucky fool, or unlucky - Einstein suffered profusely in his narcissism.

There are many family members who are kindergarten teachers and there are many family members that are scientists. I can tell you the kindergarden teachers have saved lives by the millions.

 

[MaxMad244]

Are olympic athletes or marathon runners overrated too? People praise them as well.

In reference to the original post, it is an incomplete deduction to say both Einstein and a kindergarden teacher have the same value and are both ants of different strength, in that they are rather like different type of tools, where Einstein was maybe like a microscope and the Kindergarden teacher is like a chainsaw and the athlete is like a power drill.

Their value over each other at a any given time depends on the context and the scenarios you throw them into. You cannot cut trees with a microscope same as you cannot observe microbes with a chainsaw. If you don't require to observe microbes, a microscope is worthless to you.

If you do need to observe microbes but you have too many chainsaws and not enough microscopes, you start favoring microscopes over chainsaws. So the external value accrued to each tool depends on the context and circumstances at any given time.

You have a valid argument in one sense but it's a bit straw-manny for me. My entire point is that I can prove the Kindergarten teacher contributes more to society if the butterfly affect is a law. It is a law, and therefore she does. Her or his unnoticed contributions to society have a bigger impact than the discovery of any one scientific law or principle. It's ironic, and a paradox, but an immutable law like gravity.

If we approach it from a deconstructionist perspective, then we must also re-construct it and my argument does both. It moves up and down, and left and right. That is why I think your argument is straw-mmany.

 

[MaxMad244]

The OP is an example of postmodernist deconstructionism: Everyone is a genius, which means no one is a genius. Therefore Einstein shouldn't be valued any more or less than a kindergarten teacher or a janitor.

It's a legitimate idea in some contexts. In legal settings, for example, Einstein isn't supposed to have any more rights or freedoms than a kindergarten teacher. In law, any one human has the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities as another. (In theory, anyway.)

But in many other contexts, postmodernism is just wishful thinking. For example, in the context of scarcity or contribution to society, Einstein is more highly valued. Kindergarten teachers are a dime a dozen. And a person who pushes the frontiers of science and shows humanity how to split the atom and create nuclear power plants is going to be more highly valued.

A similar idea:

Compare gold, uranium, and iron. A postmodernist interpretation would say that they are all just metals, and none is better than the other. And that's true within a very narrow context. But it's really not reflective of the real-world valuation of those things. Those metals are valued and used for very different things, and have different levels of availability/scarcity. The result is a real-world hierarchy of economic value depending on what kind of metal you need for a given situation.

In short: Postmodernism is correct up to a point, within a narrow context of valuation. But in the real world there are contexts that create valuations not covered by postmodernism.

**************​

Some history on postmodernism.

Before the 1750s, everything was valued according to hierarchies: Royalty and aristocrats were at the top of the world hierarchy, and peasants and slaves were at the bottom. Then starting around 1750 you had the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. These things toppled the old hierarchies. A big anti-hierarchy thinker around that time was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of "Discourse on Inequality" and "The Social Contract." He was pretty much the leader of the Romantic Movement.

From Rousseau and Romanticism you get the idea that humans are all due the same legal rights and freedoms.

After Rousseau's Romanticism you then get Marxism and the toppling of economic hierarchies. But Marxism didn't really work out in the real world (socialism and communism are difficult to achieve in the real world), so economic Marxism turned into social postmodernism: Postmodernism is a social version of Marxism where social hierarchies are denied. Einstein is no worse or better than a janitor.

As explained above, postmodernism is correct up to a point (for example in legal settings). But in real-world circumstances, hierarchies tend to reassert themselves depending on context and how the various skills of the players are needed and valued in real-world settings.

A more productive question might be: Why are hierarchies so necessary to humans in real-world settings? (That is, real-world settings such as creating mass markets of goods and products for modern life, creating an orderly, law-abiding society, choosing and working in lifetime careers, etc.) Answer: It's a huge world with lots of stuff happening around us, and as individuals we need to prioritize where we focus our attention, energy, time, and money. Focus = prioritization = hierarchies of importance and valuation.

Absolutely not. I am not saying that everyone is a genius so nobody is a genius. I'm not saying that there is so much varied genius it drowns out other genius and there is no noise, like canceling sound waves. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying that the most objective point of view considers all time, and all sizes. If we consider all things, or as we approach maximum data information processing, since we can't measure everything, but we can approach the limit, then we must concede that a Kindergarten teacher provides far more value to society than a person like Einstein.

However, I go further to argue that it is irrelevant because they are both just ants. I am not even saying Einstein was a genius. When I use the ant analogy I am referring to the stronger ant as the kindergarten teacher, not Einstein. My view is that there is no such thing as genius, period. And...my view is the kindergarten teacher provides more value anyways but both are near the same. There are many arguments being made and you took a piece of half and made it the entire thing.

 

[yeghor]

You have a valid argument in one sense but it's a bit straw-manny for me. My entire point is that I can prove the Kindergarten teacher contributes more to society if the butterfly affect is a law. It is a law, and therefore she does. Her or his unnoticed contributions to society have a bigger impact than the discovery of any one scientific law or principle. It's ironic, and a paradox, but an immutable law like gravity.

If we approach it from a deconstructionist perspective, then we must also re-construct it and my argument does both. It moves up and down, and left and right. That is why I think your argument is straw-mmany.

Well, prove it then.

Absolutely not. I am not saying that everyone is a genius so nobody is a genius. I'm not saying that there is so much varied genius it drowns out other genius and there is no noise, like canceling sound waves. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying that the most objective point of view considers all time, and all sizes. If we consider all things, or as we approach maximum data information processing, since we can't measure everything, but we can approach the limit, then we must concede that a Kindergarten teacher provides far more value to society than a person like Einstein.

However, I go further to argue that it is irrelevant because they are both just ants. I am not even saying Einstein was a genius. When I use the ant analogy I am referring to the stronger ant as the kindergarten teacher, not Einstein. My view is that there is no such thing as genius, period. And...my view is the kindergarten teacher provides more value anyways but both are near the same. There are many arguments being made and you took a piece of half and made it the entire thing.

Still, why does that bother you? Why do you need to prove that there's no genius when viewed from a macro scale? What difference does it make for you if you proved there's no genius and everyone's the same like atoms and each atoms' impact on society is dampened to the same level over the greater framework?

 

[FemMecha]

This is exactly what they did in the podcast which was grating. The entire podcast is premised on approaching the psyche with care and humility yet in the episode with the Daimon they have to speak about how there are different qualities to sort of dance around the fact they all unconsciously believe Einstein is god - in their view.

We know from history that whenever a man is raised to the level of a god, he is just a mediocre lucky fool, or unlucky - Einstein suffered profusely in his narcissism.

There are many family members who are kindergarten teachers and there are many family members that are scientists. I can tell you the kindergarden teachers have saved lives by the millions.

What did they do in the podcast? I think the "Great Man of History" is by nature overrated, but your statement is taking one oversimplification and restating it in the negative to negate it. Perhaps "We know from history that whenever a man is raised to the level of a god, his is still just a man with strengths and weaknesses". To whatever extent Einstein was socially and morally unpalatable, does not need to reflect directly on his intellectual skill. He demonstrated intellectual skill that is notably above average, but it is unrealistic to see him as the embodiment of science, a demigod, right about everything, the archetype for intellectualism.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? God or fool? Can't it be somewhere in the middle?