h a l f b a k e r yThis would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Titled Genius
Truley brained, if a materialistic catabolytic process is included in portfolio. | |
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
Engineers Explained
http://bcn.boulder..../engineerhumor.html
It explains a lot ... [8th of 7, Dec 31 2018]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
//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? |
|
| |
You've just invented The Halfbakery. We're all
geniuses here. |
|
| |
Can we get an award for trying to un-invent cats ? |
|
| |
Ok, I reclaimed the mercury, where's the A? |
|
| |
[-] Grammatically and conceptually bollocks. Rewrite and resubmit. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
[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. |
|
| |
[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. |
|
| |
//[Max] We have to make those people globally recognised//
They are. It's called a Nobel prize. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
... 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. |
|
| |
// 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? |
|
| |
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". |
|
| |
//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? |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Sherlock Holmes?
MacGyver.
Angela Lansbury's character in Murder, She
Wrote
The Professor on Gillian's Island perhaps.
Gus Fring
Dougie Howser
Dr. House? |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
The guy you're looking for is Manu Prakash. Not on TV, alas, but a
few spots on YouTube. |
|
| |
The guy that Dr. Miichio Kaku plays on tv. I think it
was Miichio Kaku. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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] 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. |
|
| |
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) |
|
| |
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"? |
|
| |
// 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. |
|
| |
[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. |
|
| |