Slashdot Mirror
Genius Requires Just the Right Mix
An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience has an interesting piece taking a look at how genius is rarely developed in a vacuum. From the article: 'The reality is that behind many scientific geniuses, there is at least one other genius, and often a number of them.' It takes much more than a genius pal or predecessor, however, to do great science, according to Simmons. Scientific advances emerge from social, economic and political conditions."
He's still alive, you insensitive ass.
Really brilliant people (not just scientifically, but in any discipline or industry) surround themselves with other brilliant people. They enjoy being challenged by peers. They are secure in their abilities and know that other brilliant people will not threaten their place but help to elevate it.
I am finding, early in my business career, that working with other talented people makes me work harder and aspire to greater things. The constant challenges put a perspective on the obstacles I used to face - ones I now overcome easily.
I'm beginning to believe that "genius" is just a frame of mind.
...and he says she never loses suction, either.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
What a foul little waste of blurb space that was.
Science doesn't have a monopoly on genius. There is plenty of genius elsewhere.
As for the conditions necessary for "genius" things to happen in science, that's called a "paradigm shift". Read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution".
All this article told me was someone was trying to cover some white space.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Browse /. at -1 and notice how stupidity doesn't develop in a vacuum either. Behind every "-1 Offtopic" comment, there are dozens of other equally irrelevant, nonsensical rants. One "Stephen King is Dead" post always leads to more, and penis bird lives on.
Human cognition has been described by some researchers as unique in that it is the result of many years of cumulated cultural evolution. We think in symbols that have developed over time. In that sense, all of us can be said to "stand on the shoulders of giants."
Certain environments (cultural, social, intellectual, environments) are ripe for a certain key innovation. It is up to individual researchers to make that development, but of course it wouldn't be possible without the work of others before them. This is even more evident when we look at scenarios in which several researchers develop the same innovation at almost precisely the same time.
Of course, drawing the conclusion that "geniuses are just like the rest of us" is totally of base. Some individuals are most assuredly better than others at innovating and developing our knowledge. In fact, I would submit that the majority of humans take the role of "imitator" not innovator. Innovators have to be rare, and imitators prevalent, in order for cumulative cultural evolution to work; lots of people need to preserve our knowledge -you can't have everyone thinking differently and innovating.
Further to this, I would like to add that the sort of genius that makes an "Einstein" is not necessarily just "being smart", whatever that means, but thinking differently than the rest of us -just being weird. A low amount of weird individuals in a social group will allow that group to explore new possibilities safely.
I believe the word you are looking for is 'clod'
You take a dash of dad, a pinch of mom, then we bake for nine months and mmm, that's good Billy!
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
According to that hypothesis, I'm wondering how many geniuses /. has produced, since everyone here considers himself/herself a genius? Most important of all, when am I going to become a genius too, since I've been surrounding myself with all these geniuses here for quite a while now?
/. genius makes you a genius. True. /. geniuses makes you a genius. True. /. geniuses makes you a genius. True. /. geniuses also makes you a genius.
/. geniuses does it take to prove this?
Can someone prove to me that this hypothesis is true:
1. Surround yourself with one
2. Surround yourself with two
3. Surround yourself with n
4. Hence, surround yourself with n + 1
The question is, how many
There's a very long string of famous mathematicians that associated with each other (not necessarily directly, but they are all connected on a relatively small graph), beginning with Leibniz and ending with Dirichlet. It includes Bernoulli, Euler, Lagrange, Fourier, and Poisson, as well as the aforementioned two.
So yes, I'd be inclined to agree.
The summary is fairly misleading. (gasp!) All the article says is that geniuses who accomplish great things tend to work closely with other geniuses. The summary implies that you are only a genius if you accomplish great things. There are probably a fair number of geniuses in the world that spend too much time on the small stuff to do great things.
So if it takes more than one genius to produce another genius, does that mean we could be looking at a genius shortage in the future?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
From the article:
"The scientific genius who grew up in grinding poverty is an exceedingly rare bird," he said. "If it seems there was a great flowering of scientific genius out of Eastern Europe beginning in the late nineteenth century, it was due in large part to a developing middle class, a stable family life, and secular opportunities for both men and women."
So, less povery will produce more geniuses. I think that's a really good argument for creating a stronger social safety net.
Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Best Free Utilities for Windows
How is that flamebait? I have to disagree, however, in that these highly talented individuals are helped by equally or slightly less talented individuals. Edison didn't invent the lightbulb all by himself, nor do most innovators work alone.
Documentation: Instructions translated from Swedish by Japanese for English speaking persons.
Well, if you perform an aggregate analysis of all the slashdot subscribers, I think you might find one or two savants.
:)
Certainly more than one idiot.
Myself included.
I think what really captures the academic imagination is not genius, but compelling conversations. It is not really a matter of geniuses some how orbiting eachother, as the article seems to imply. What happens is that, on occasion, a compelling conversative takes place that really draws in the imagination of the academic crowd.
... and not necessarily on the qualities of the people engaged in the conversation.
/. formula of x number of articles a day generating several hundred unedited comments does not really create any one truly compelling conversation. Even if there were Newton quality thinkers hitting the board, their insights get bulled over in the rush of folk like me who simply like to drop pithy little comments here and about for entertainment.
People learn learn the names of the actors in a conversation. I think this is the primary reason why we end up seeing genius of ages coming at us in groups.
The best conversations, of course, really do take place between thinkers of genius quality. Regardless, the intrigue of a conversation spreads on the merits of the conversation
BTW, the
Exactly. Kuhn's ideas about how scientists who are creating paradigm shifts are reacting to breakdowns in the normal order of things are decades old but much more insightful. Here is a thumbnail sketch of one such idea.
Kuhn saw scientists in a given specialization as members of a particular linguistic community. Genius revisionings of whole specializations or even whole sciences happen when the normal language of that science, like dynamics or chemistry, starts to prove inadequate to the task of describing what the scientist sees. Strange anomalies begin to appear that have no place in the old language.
A new language is proposed by a young scientist or someone new to the field, and a debate over the old vision and the new vision begins. It is beset by communication problems ranging from the ambiguity of words used differently in the two contexts, to the structure of reality itself in the two languages. The old vision and the new vision don't translate. But the genius is so convincing, or so elegant, or provides such surprising and shocking evidence, that the new language wins out eventually. Or, alternatively, the old language is sufficient and the new one fails to provide the evidence it should.
Incidentally, this provides a very interesting context in which to view the evolution vs. intelligent design cultural debate. Intelligent design isn't really giving scientists a new framework to work within, no new language from which to view the world, a language that resolves outstanding problems with evolution and yet is fertile enough to lead to new problems suitable for science.
But it also provides an interesting way to think about what post-evolution biological science might look like. From my layman's (CS scientist's) viewpoint, one big change might involve the causes of life and death. They are a little fuzzy for edge cases, like the origin of the proto-cellular organism, or the status of a dormant virus, or the possibility of extending human life beyond the hundred-year range. Some new language exploding these fuzzy terms, life and death, might arise that puts evolution in a larger context, if such a thing is possible.
Great science is made out of just such analogical visions, a great idea applied out of place. The linked article mentioned Darwin's geology book; Darwin applied concepts about rocks changing over time to biology and the rest is history.
In any case, the approbation of a group of scientists is key to extending the life of a scientific paradigm; these are the professional problem solvers who recognize the salience of the problems the new paradigm solves and the power of the language the new paradigm provides. They also work within the boundaries of the paradigms, hunting vigorously for anomalies, guided by a sense that they are making generalizations concrete, and yet at any moment ready to make an observation to turn the universe on its head.
One scientist alone is like a voice in the wilderness, speaking a private language. But geniuses are nurtured in good company, by a challenging community. Richard Hamming said as much in a great talk about doing great scientific work. If you want to read about genius, read that.
"The essence of science is cumulative. By changing a problem slightly you can often do great work rather than merely good work. Instead of attacking isolated problems, I made the resolution that I would never again solve an isolated problem except as characteristic of a class."
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
No, I enjoy squashing them. As if a genius can have a "peer". True genius has no equal, and quite simply cannot have peers. In other words, true geniuses don't need to be around other people to convince themselves that they are "smart": they KNOW that they are smart.
Not sure what qualifies you as a genious. Anyways your approach of "squashing" will not get you far in the real world. Most geniouses will acknowlege they were not the first, nor the last. Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"?
there is a certain school of thought that high IQ, or high SAT scores is intelligence and has value in real life
IQ and SAT has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever
if by intelligence you mean something that has value to society, something beyond mental parlor tricks
being able to manipulate 3D topology in your head or factorize numbers quickly is really almost idiot savant level stuff, an autistic skill
but these same people might not be able to keep their checkbook balanced or be able to talk to people in simple social settings
much like how in "rain man" you had a guy who could count hundreds of toothpicks spilled on the floor in a second, but thought a candy bar and a car both cost $100
IQ score or high SAT is just a cult that doesn't translate into real genius in life, and often has no correlation whatsoever
real genius is all about applying yourself
just ask edison: "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration"
the application of what you think is more important than what you think
a well executed bad idea has more impact on this world than a poorly executed good idea
a genius thought has no value whatsoever if it stays locked up in your head, and stays there, because you can't communicate it or translate it well, because you lack discipline or social abilities
and discipline and social ability are factors of environment and character
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i think historically, the most important & revolutionary thought has come from quiet, reserved, socially inept, introverts. not to say that jimi hendrix is all (or any) of the preceding - but consider this: the self taught man has changed the way we play guitars. these examples of collaboration all relate to technical advances in science. philosophical revolutions, i think, happen in solitaire.
that said, i (and i think all of us) confide in/on slashdot to get some sort of intellectual gratification. im fucking 16, and public school isn't doing it for me. im by no means a genius. i just want to be a real human being.
and what revelation aimed at the intelligence quota are feminists go'in to astound us with now?
Cannot be satisfied because they don't want to be, the more hoping around you do to please them the more dysfunctional you become. Evil men with tits, nothing more.
You should have cut that sentence right after "himself".
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Argh... I mean right after "lightbulb".
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
When I was 7 or 8, I got an IQ test. I had an IQ of around 140. As far as I know, I still do - I sure don't feel smarter 7 or so years later, and I get the same standardized-test percentiles every year. I haven't gotten smarter - I've just learned more.
So maybe genius is applying your natural intelligence to your experiential knowledge?
I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
The sociologist Howard Becker has written extensively, most clearly in his book "Art Worlds," that to understand creation the locus should be the entire world of the artist, not the artist. We're making a mistake if we try to understand Beethoven's 9th without reference to the culture of Vienna, the rising role of the publishing house, the people who let him live the unfettered (if tortured) life of a creative artist, all play a role alongside the musicians, the promoters, his students, and composers who preceeded him and worked alongside him. That Viennese world, with Beethoven in it, Becker would argue, is the actual producer of the work.
The same holds true for science and other creative endeavors. It's not an airtight thesis, by any means, but it is provocative and gets people thinking along different lines than the unitary individual acting alone as we are so prone to do in the West...
Namely, "Genius loves company".
I've never taken the SAT, so there is no way I can be a genius. Don't remember the IQ score either, if that's any indication.
My momma gave birth to a winner, I gotta win.
I don't agree with the assertions of the author. I know it is in vogue to believe it's a special relationship between events, people, etc., that makes a genius, but I don't agree. You are or you aren't. Whether the genius' contributions are recognized, whether the genius finds an appropriate subject in which to expend his creative energy, these are the questions.
The article goes on to discuss how Einstein had all the benefits of other great physicists. But wait, he dropped out of high school, barely made it into college, and couldn't even find a job. He taught himself calculus, and developed special relativity on his own.
History is rife with examples of genius forgotten, and who knows how much is lost. The Fourier Transform was rejected by the Academy of Sciences of Paris, yet look at the applications today, from digital image processing, communications theory, and the profound impact it had on the revolutionary idea of function. Consider others, such as Fermat, a great mathematician, for whom math was only a hobby. This extends to other things like music. Bach, little known in his own time, and completely forgotten until he was discovered by Mendelssohn, is now considered by many to be the greatest composer of all time.
No, I think that people who like to say there is no Genius, only environment, are merely mediocre thinkers, socialists, and those who would rob the wonderful talent of the great contributers of our world. The goal? To diminish individual contribution and aggrandize socialism.
The real question we ought to be asking, is given there are as many people alive today as ever, why don't we have 10000 geniuses making enormous progress in the sciences, when largely we hear about questionable things like "cold fusion," and the like.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
It's because America has top-notch gyms and training equipment, allowing more people with natural talent to be able to develop their talents to the extreme.
Cntrl-C, Cntrl-V this idea into an intellectual bucket, and you get the point of the article. Environment is critical to "geniusness".
the first being a book of ayn rand's letters and (maybe?) diary entries. the second being a gigantic book of anne sexton's letters.
:(
since moving to DC to work for the DOD, i have to admit, i feel stupider than ever. not because i don't attempt to better myself, but because the general crowd mentality is to not rock the boat. a few months ago, i told my contract manager how i loved my job (fixing problems) but hated to work in an environment where for the most part, the people were far more ignorant or stupid than me.
nothing kills the quest for knowledge more than having people who only care about their vacation and step increase around you for 2 years.
PHB: A good manager is someone who hires people who are smarter than he is.
Wally: So... your boss is dumber than you?
Alice: And you boss's boss is dumber yet?
Dilbert: According to your theory, our CEO is the dumbest person in the company.
Wally: Unless all of you are bad managers.
Asok: Truly we are doomed either way.
PHB: This concludes the motivational part of the meeting.
Wally: I'd give you a high five but I don't like to move.
Sure, there could be several savants. There might even be a real genius hiding out here somewhere. But most of us are no where near true genius status, even if we'd like to be. There are plenty of smarts on slashdot, I've not seen real genius and I've been looking here for a *long* time.
- doug
Just out of spontaneous curiosity, is there such a thing as a sensitive clod?
And the Savantissimo!
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Doh, never mind. The Sensitive Clod is who wrote Linux. As a whole. By themself. I thought it was Tux.
A B A C A B B
Actually I have monitored the three- to five- sigma IQ societies for some time, and their conversations are usually less intelligent than the norm here in Slashdot. (Sad, I know.) Maybe your standards of genius are just unrealistic?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
IMHO, genius is very closly related to serendipity. Also, the ability to realize the discovery and act on it.
One of biggest problems a "genius thinker" often faces is his own intelligence. He is on a much higher level and being surrounded by "normal people" often leaves him unchallenged, he doesn't have to work at anything, and then his discontent could squash the ideas right out of him. But as soon as you put him in a room with another on his level, he will quickly find himself challenged, and will respond with genius, as will his counterpart, leading to truly amazing things. As a general rule, I've found that people don't excel unless they have a reason to. 99% of the time, its competition
A lot of Olympic quality athletes come to the US and become citizens. Although they compete under the stars and stripes, can you really qualify them that way? The Olympics is a pro sports business (no matter what they say), a lot of the better competitotrs just go where the money is, which coincidently is where some of the better training is. And the USA has a *tremendous* genetic pool mix, so we up the odds fantastically on finding niche athletes.
Long term, I'd say watch China at the olympics, they will be dominating over all gold wins, because it's a matter of national level government interest, like it used to be in Russia for instance, 100% full support as soon as they saw a toddler with good natural skills.
"genius is rarely developed in a vacuum"
Well, duh. Poor bugger'd be suffocated before he had time to say "Interesting colour my aaaaarghhhh"
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
mentioned that focusing on the individual is a western thing. it is an intersting aside that in eastern cultures, a person accomplishes not solely for themselves, but often for the benefit of the scoial group (whatever that may be) this type of thinking is indoctrinated in several asian cultures (or any culture where the extended family is the basic social unit). Therefore, the individual who excels is acknowleged, but as a part of the larger unit that produced them.
This article demonstrates that the west (companies like Google leading the way) are only just catching on to the idea that breakthroughs are more complicated than an individual "A HA!" moment.
*prepares grammar shield of +5 flame protection*
However, surrounding one's self with excellence at work is only part of the equation, surrounding one's self with a nurturing and supportive family environment (good nutrition and well-balanced life experiences) at an early age further assists your development. Then there are the other relevant social, cultural, and other environmental factors that would go along with this.
Like wild sex with a naked bitchin' ho.
Just for balance.
The big picture is painfull to look at.Humans have no choice but to put the parts togeather while they are face down.The parts are warped for a reason.Forcing them to fit will not work.The picture is 4 dimensional .Most of the pieces are still not put togeather .Some of the pieces that are togeather are in the wrong place .Some are so wrong that we need to hold them together so they dont fly apart.Unfortunatly we have to force them togeather.The more pieces you try the better.After years of forcing pieces togeather you may find that one piece that fits perfectly.Adding more and more pieces untill you get a glimse of the big pic.It gets less and less painfull each time you add a piece correctly.There is no proffit in this ,only reality.
lg
While the article may very well be true, I've heard another saying that strikes me as even more true, "There is a fine line bettwen a Genius and an Idiot." Many people we hold in high esteeme for their brillance were also a little eccentric, or down right crazy. Vincent Van Gogh, Bobby Fisher, Andy Warhol, hell Wikipedia has a whole list of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_widely _considered_eccentric.
In my personal experience, most of the smartest people I have meet have been a little bit, well crazy. Now figuring out what that tiny factor that truly does seperate the loonies, from the genius loonies, that is the hard part.
Edison didn't invent the light bulb. Joseph Swan did.
Ramanujan is one of the biggest mathematical geniuses ever, and taught himself these things in a vacuum.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/spo_sum_oly_me d_all_tim_percap
Olympic medals per capita, all time:
#1 Finland
#2 Sweden
#3 Hungary
#4 Denmark
#5 Norway
.
.
.
the US comes in at place 28 of 116. And as for gold medals, well, there are no total statistics on the site, but for Sydney, gold medals per capita put the US at place 31 of 48. And so on. It's pretty standard knowledge that the US does very badly in the Olympics for a country of that size. It only does well in the absolute number of medals because of its, well, absolute size, which gives it a massive pool of talented people and a lot will succeed regardless of how inferior their training/financial environment is to rich world standards.
(BTW, part of the reason why Finland is leading the all time per capita stats is that in the early 20th century Finns *were* often written off in Western Europe/America as racially inferior and there was a huge national push to succeed in sports to defeat that image...)
I'm on Linux you insensitive clod. Those shortcuts don't work for me!
Something makes me think that if you were one you really wouldnt long to be one.
;-), they smell, cant find a steady job - forget about family/kids etc. All is left for'm is a strange urge to so something which is not going to be needed for another hundred or thousand years if ever at all. That means no money, no fame, no nothing.
:-).
;-), raise ya mice!
Geniuses are normally not adapted socially, they have sexual problems (overzealousness in it is a problem too
Now, Do you want the 'right mix' for yourself?
Imagine I can snap my fingers and when the time comes you're going to reincarnate into a genius. Imagine I'm not kidding (It can be serious - who knows
All those who want toi be geniuses in the next life (if you believe in it
Although genetics play a small part by determining your hardware, Genius is nothing more then the software running on that hardware. A Genius brain has better algorithms making use of its individual hardware then a average person.
as in the ratio of LSD to amphetamines?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I only use the O RLY because this is stupid-obvious and not completely true. Sure, in a sense, the title of the article sums it up nicely. But there's a reason your average half-retard doesn't stumble upon great ideas suddenly and without warning. Or your 160IQ professor at a university who goes his whole life without doing anything that changes his field. I consider this assessment an interpretation, or rationilization of genius, to help commoners better understand how people get their ideas and form creative thought patters. But come on. Most the people in this article make the guy that wrote it sound like a toddler hell-bent on gettin a fruit roll-up.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders - Hal Abelson
I am not a genius, but I work with such idiots who make me resemble one. Boss mistakes frequently for man of great Mental Power.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Thought of a good example.
Next time you get into an argument with someone at your house, call the cops, and see how well gov't intervention helps you out. Then think about communist and socialist beurocracies again.
Not making or implying any employment offers here but (i) In which country or countries do you and your partner, if applicable, currently have rights of residency and employment? (ii) What are your highest educational qualifications? (iii) What do you think are your skills? (iv) What are your research interests, if any? (v) What sort of work do you find interesting? (vi) Why did you drop out of your previous jobs?
"Talent borrows, genius steals."
In a Holliday Inn Express overnight? maybe...
Genius is Relative, pun intended. Pythagoras was considered a genius, but what he discovered is considered junior high school level science today. The same holds true for Archimedes. People seem to be a genius be only compared to those around them. The one thing that most people will never understand is that people who are labeled "genius" are rarely trying to be one nor care if they are. The discover things because they are curious, because they are compelled. They never ask, "What can I do with this?" What can I blow up or how do I sell this?" It is always the simple minded less creative people that find a way to make a fortune off a real genius's ideas. If you are wondering if you are a genius, stop and just get on with the task of discovery!
It's always been difficult for us to measure "genius". Since we're in an age where we can't believe what we can't measure, we pretend that various intelligence-testing systems are completely accurate. Statistics and experimental results are also seen as infallible. Genius - extroardinary mental brilliance - occurs in all segments of a population. That includes genius social butterflies and genius friendless loners. Great ideas don't need to come from some hive-mind of geniuses, but the more people who contribute to a project, the more people who have a direct stake in getting it published or implemented. Their social resources help publicize whatever it is they've discovered or invented. The genius who goes home alone and draws flying-machines on napkins, or discusses the nature of reality with their cat, will probably never be recognized.
While his acheivements go beyond genius into the relms of the truely exceptional. The section on his childhood and early life suggest his skills where not developed in a total vacuum. There appears to be some nurturing of his innate abilities. He received schooling which was rare anywhere in the world in the 19th Century, tutoring from student lodgers and esteemed mentors from an early age.
Your own link states the weighted average as 5.6 per 1 million people and the US results as 7.15508 per 1 million people.
This supports the OP's statement as literally true. Your follow up comments also support the OP's conclusion. That environmental competition plays a role even when the objective of that competition is different; financial gain vs nation pride.
The following link from the same site might add more light than heat to the overall discussion.
http://www.nationmaster.com/correlations/spo_sum_
When we ask if genius can come out of a metaphorical vacuum, this begs the question, did life come out of a vacuum? We evolved from single cells, and so genius is a relative thing when placed in the context of the gradual progression of Homo evolution. Yet there has always been a bell curve-type distribution of various capacities, not only intellectual, at any given point in evolutionary history, that contributed to survival. If you always need a genius to make another genius, where did the first one come from? We, our line of cells, have developed organs with the capacity to think, to reason and this has happened without anyone's individual will--in a "vacuum." The question is would a genius still actualize their genius in the world if they were not also exposed to other geniuses? Science is an exploratory, stair-step process, a gradual building with plenty of flubs along the way, as is biological evolution, cultural evolution, intellectual evolution. Genius is taking the next step, blazing the next trail. It makes sense that scientists stand on the backs of other scientists because we are trying to collectively piece together the truth in science. A cultural context, an exchange of ideas, a society, these are the breeding grounds for valuable contributions to the improvement of human life and this is what gets recognized, these people are notable, these ideas withstand the test of time-survival of the fittest ideas-and these are geniuses, who shed a bit more light on the truth, expand the territory of human understanding, reveal something useful. Mathematics came out of nowhere, every idea was originally born in a mind for the first time, and as our ability to organize and transmit these ideas increases, the breeding ground becomes more fertile. So we're all standing on the backs of thinkers who came before us, that is an inescapable, intrinsic part of our social reality for people who think and communicate in the world, yet whose back did the first thinkers stand on? I think it is important to remember the lesson of Socrates at this point, thinking for yourself and taking that step into the unknown...daring to question basic fundamental assumptions, to discover the truth for yourself, this is the spirit in which we ought to inquire into the world, an old world with long history which is yet always new. And this is the spirit that has driven human discovery.