Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Open other side.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Titled Genius

Truley brained, if a materialistic catabolytic process is included in portfolio.
  [vote for,

Looking at E-waste article about Togo made me think. Humanity has some brains but economic and societal pressures usually, but not always, drives those very clever and exceptional people to think for the anabolytic side, 4K televisions, faster sports cars and longer life.

I'm not saying this drive is bad but I think, to be called a complete, holistic genius, the person needs a discovery or invention in the un-invent category. Also less bad stuff means there is more room for more good stuff.

When societies weight is on the 'Invent something and make your millions', A title, that is known globally, that shows everyone that there are insanely skilled people that can truly fix stuff for all of us, must be a light switched on for humanity.

Of course the laurels of an officially confered Genius is reclained mercury swirling around A

wjt, Dec 29 2018

Engineers Explained http://bcn.boulder..../engineerhumor.html
It explains a lot ... [8th of 7, Dec 31 2018]


       //Of course the laurels of an officially confered Genius is reclained mercury//   

       Ah, so this idea is actually about some form of reverse (or not? I did only skim the bits on how you choose your geniuses) eugenics then?
Skewed, Dec 29 2018

       You've just invented The Halfbakery. We're all geniuses here.
xenzag, Dec 29 2018

       Can we get an award for trying to un-invent cats ?
8th of 7, Dec 29 2018

       Ok, I reclaimed the mercury, where's the A?
not_morrison_rm, Dec 29 2018

       [-] Grammatically and conceptually bollocks. Rewrite and resubmit.
Voice, Dec 29 2018

       //economic and societal pressures usually, but not always, drives those very clever and exceptional people to think for the anabolytic side, 4K televisions, faster sports cars and longer life.//   

       I beg to differ. It's usually quite dim people who aim only for money and possessions. I know some extremely (Nobelishly) smart people, some of whom have made more money than you can readily conceive of, through science. They have not (not a one of them) gone for 4000 televisions or sports cars.   

       Oh and, alas, what [Voice] said.
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 29 2018

       [voice] True but the flawed, cascades other thoughts which will, hopefully, fire the right synapses.   

       //skim the bits on how you choose you geniuses//   

       [Skewed] Again true. Maybe a global peer reviewed system so everyone actually feels and thinks the person deserves the genius title.   

       [zenzag] Local geniuses   

       [Max] We have to make those people globally recognised with a matching equally well known honour. A celebrity in the eyes of the world.   

       [not_morrison_rm] But did you invent the process or make it easiler for humanity because that would be true genius.
wjt, Dec 29 2018

       //[Max] We have to make those people globally recognised// They are. It's called a Nobel prize.
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 29 2018

       Nobel Prizes are still not a candle to superstardom. What role models do you think children get exposed to growing up? I think, there are are too many categories before the humanitarian genius.
wjt, Dec 30 2018

       I believe the role of role models is exaggerated. Role models are for people who devote a lot of attention to "How do I look? How can I look more like a famous person?" Interesting stuff is not done by those people, but by those more focused on "How does the universe look?" To put it another way, anyone who needs a role model to motivate them to get into science is unlikely to do much for science.
pertinax, Dec 31 2018

       ... particularly if their role model is Brian Cox.   

       Famous people fall into two basic categories. The first and obvious one is those who go out to seek fame and adapt their behaviour to gain attention.   

       The second category is more interesting; those who merely set out to do something they enjoyed and/or were good at, and to whom the fame that went with success was a bit disconcerting. Some never quite get used to it. Neil Armstrong was a good example.   

       Harold Wilson, former prime minister of the UK, loved meeting celebrities and other famous folk, and collected autographs assiduously. One if his favourite photographs was of him meeting The Beatles. He was often taken aback when he was recognized, and asked for his own autograph.
8th of 7, Dec 31 2018

       // anyone who needs a role model to motivate them to get into science is unlikely to do much for science. // That sounds reasonably true. I wonder though if there might be a reasonable number of people who could do something for science (maybe not something great, but at least something useful) if enjoying math and science wasn't portrayed as abnormal.   

       Can someone give me some examples of characters in TV shows or movies who are portrayed as socially normal or even popular and yet have an above average to genius level ability in science, technology, math, or engineering?
scad mientist, Dec 31 2018

       A point to recognize is that people who have // an above average to genius level ability in science, technology, math, or engineering // are generally not all that concerned about being or appearing // socially normal or even popular //.   

       As Scott Adams points out in "Understanding Engineers", <link>   

       " ... two things are important to engineers: How smart they are, and how many cool devices they own. "   

       Generally, such individuals do not seek or require external validation outside their peer group, which is by convergent (self-)selection composed of those with a very similar world view. These are, after all, the only ones capable of making an objective assessment, something quite beyond the average prole.   

       For example, a successful academic would be extremely unlikely to say "Dr Phibes has mad hair, no friends, wears cheap drip-dry nylon shirts, and has been driving the same wreck of a car for twenty years".   

       They are much more likely to say, "Well, if you want to know about 14th Dynasty funerary ceremonials, you need to talk to Ben Phibes, he's absolutely the top man ... over there by the bar, blue suit with engine oil on the cuffs".
8th of 7, Dec 31 2018

       //Can someone give me some examples of characters in TV shows or movies who are portrayed as socially normal or even popular and yet have an above average to genius level ability in science, technology, math, or engineering?// How about Sheldon Cooper?
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 31 2018

       Hmm, I've never watched the Big Bang Theory (though it is on my informal list of shows I might check out from the library some day). When I googled Sheldon Cooper, the first thing Google said "People also ask" was "What does Sheldon Cooper suffer from", and it indicates that he has some Asperger-like characteristics. Maybe the show intended for him to be normal, but some people have forced themselves to see him as having a condition because they can't stand the thought of a normal smart person.
scad mientist, Jan 01 2019

       Good or bad Albert has reached global superstardom, the picture boy for genius. His name is used as an education label on products, in block buster movies, and is well heard of by populations all around the world. He is not seen as abnormal.   

       It's just a pity that society doesn't validate this superstar type more. Although it is a catch 22, a true genius is needed to showcase the ethereal quantity that is clever thought gymnastics.
wjt, Jan 01 2019

       Well, apart from Einstein we have Darwin and Newton - I'd bet that they're both up there on a list of names everyone knows.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 01 2019

       Sherlock Holmes?
Angela Lansbury's character in Murder, She Wrote
The Professor on Gillian's Island perhaps.
Gus Fring
Dougie Howser
Dr. House?
RayfordSteele, Jan 01 2019

       Sherlock Holmes? - socially dysfunctional drug addict.   

       MacGyver. - dangerous IED-obsessed maniac.   

       Angela Lansbury's character in Murder, She Wrote - yes, surprising normal.   

       The Professor on Gillian's Island perhaps. - not a bad example.   

       Gus Fring - except he's a psychopathic drug dealer.   

       Dougie Howser - too young to accurately determine his character.   

       Dr. House? - Obnoxious, opinionated, offensive. Brilliant, capable, life-saving, but not exactly likeable.
8th of 7, Jan 01 2019

       I like him.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 01 2019

       The guy you're looking for is Manu Prakash. Not on TV, alas, but a few spots on YouTube.
lurch, Jan 01 2019

       The guy that Dr. Miichio Kaku plays on tv. I think it was Miichio Kaku.
RayfordSteele, Jan 01 2019

       Aside: [RayfordSteele] Went to one of those fodder meets with Dr Kaku, decided not to worry about the personal meet, probably due to the event process more than anything. I would have rather liked to go to one of his high level lectures, where I do not understand anything and are stimulated by everything.   

       Bernard Quartermass
wjt, Jan 02 2019

       Meanwhile, back in the idea ... is catabolysis really the right metaphor here? Wikipedia tells me it's part of the starvation process, ending in irreversible organ damage.   

       I think there may be a good idea to be had about ascribing values to things that don't happen - such as the value of not developing over the top of certain ecosystems - but I'm not sure this is that idea.
pertinax, Jan 02 2019

       Catabolism and Anabolism, although not necessarily balanced, are vital for growth and renewal. Humans in our short existence have weighted survival (because we initially needed to) and making the next big thing rather than the genius of taking a step back and seeing the specific death processes needed to be infinitely expanding and sustainable.
wjt, Jan 02 2019

       OK, but are you sure catabolism and catabolysis are the same thing? The "-lysis" suffix suggests breaking something, whereas "catabolism" merely indicates moving something down (to a simpler level of molecular organisation?) without necessarily breaking anything.   

       You will recall that steroids tend to be anabolic, not anabolytic.
pertinax, Jan 02 2019

       [pertinax] I think you have a scoping problem. Your definitions will be totally correct but when someone like myself generalizes a term to another frame of reference, it will be the feel of the concept. It can only be the case because ultimately the meaning will break if stretched too far.   

       If I was writing specifically on biochemistry and biochemical pathways, rightly, I would be very careful about the term's specific meaning.
wjt, Jan 04 2019

       I was going to say Dr Who, but having a time machine, s/he'd fix the problems before they happened.   

       Would make for boring TV though. (Imagines the Doctor using setting 487 to sterilise Davros's grandparents nads in their sleep)
not_morrison_rm, Jan 04 2019

       All right, you're speaking metaphorically, which is fine. I'm just struggling to understand your metaphor. Can you give an historical example of someone brilliantly un-inventing something? Would this include the elimination of smallpox? The abolition of slavery? Would the rather strenuous uninvention of National Socialism in 1945 count? Have you noticed that the things I just listed were somewhat collective efforts, rather than acts of individual genius?   

       Or were you more on the wavelength of those economists who like to speak of "creative destruction"?
pertinax, Jan 04 2019

       // the rather strenuous uninvention of National Socialism in 1945 ... collective efforts //   

       We wish to immediately distance ourselves from [pert]'s unjustified accusation. That was nothing to do with us.
8th of 7, Jan 04 2019

       [Pertinax] Definitely not 'creative destruction' when it respects to monetary valuing because value isn't that sane anyway. Parts being more expensive than the whole (uneconomic to fix), intricate complex things being cheaper than simple things all because of the whim of the want market. I do like the wording of creative destruction for getting the most of our collective societies' complex builds at the end of their first life.   

       I would not class your examples as catabolytic actions because their outcomes end up being a more cohesive larger society able to expand more therefore adding to the anabolytic action ledger. I do see the point that they are intertwined, though.   

       An example, in my mind, would be thermo-setting plastics, a low energy process to reclaim that solidified petroleum would be a process to the end of time. Cellulose would be another great target. Catalytic cogs in humanities production system.   

       Past examples of clever reuse probably got buried in the new anabolytical use rather than heralding the initial process for needed due credit. Hence the spotlight and a sketchy idea for a befitting title.
wjt, Jan 04 2019


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle