I would like some tips, suggestions, and experience in living with an extra degree of intensity, depth, and general intelligence.
1. You may be unique, but you are not uniquely bright. Bear in mind that just because you are smart doesn't mean that everyone else is stupid. It is amazing how many people make this mistake.
I love learning, yet I never have found school enjoyable. I'm incredibly intense and concentrated
Well College should be better, then. However,
, yet I often become bored of specific projects in a few months.
2. Bear in mind that just because you are initially bored by something doesn't mean it isn't worth learning. This is true of College courses: You may find afterwards that it was worthwhile and not what you expected. That is why it's called "an Education."
My attention span is practically unlimited when I am interested in a topic, and I get intensely interested in it.
3. Yet you say you also get bored easily after a few months. Well, that's OK: keep an eye out for something that doesn't wear off. The advice of Stanford's John Perry is as good as any: At college take one third of your units learning something that will pay your wages afterwards; one third fulfilling requirements to the university; and one third for yourself, to find out who you are. It will be much more expensive to have a nervous breakdown in your '50s than to find out who you are while you're in college."
I'm just coming up on entering college, so most of my life is ahead of me.
4. Exactly. So don't panic yet. And don't drop out, for Christ sake. You're guaranteeing yourself a 35% cut in future earnings.
I was expecting the announcement of a $10, 3-petabyte nuclear-fusion-powered player with collapsible 60-inch plasma screen and direct bluetooth link to the Mars Rover, but all I get is this mini piece of crap. I mean, come on. In protest I will buy the 128mb NinFuju HappyListen, which only costs $200 and supports Ogg Vorbis.
Ask anyone who ever read the Lord of the Rings as a kid and then went and read the Hobbit afterwards. Although it's a delightful children's novel, the Hobbit is inevitably a terrible disappointment after the scope and depth of the LOTR.
The only way it would work would be if it was deliberately filmed and marketed as a movie for young children.
Various blogs have been talking about this recently. It seems too early to say who's right here --- the original authors have issued a vigorous interim rebuttal [pdf] of the charges, so it's hard to say what's happening. But let's not let that get in the way of a good bit of enviro-sensationalism, eh?
Personally, I won't bother to find out first hand until they slap a recordable DVD drive in there."
Why stop at a recordable DVD drive? I am holding out for an integrated Bluetooth connectivity, PS2, coffee-maker, GPS and magic 8-ball. I also want it to be solar powered and to be totally waterproof at depths of up to 5000 meters. It shoud also cost less than $20 and run Debian. These are the reasonable consumer demands of me, Joe Slashdot.
"We can only hope against hope that they won't suck."
I'm sure that, by now, the relationship between George Lucas and his fans is a standard case study in counseling handbooks, codependence manuals, psychotherapy training, etc.
Fans (to counselor): I love him, he's really wonderful deep down, I know he means well and is a decent man.
(Cut to videotape) Lucas: Take this, you stupid bitch! [Smack! Punch! Ewoks! Jar-Jar!]
Fans (Sobbing): It must be my fault --- I just can't seem to please him. I know he doesn't mean to hurt me like this....
Sean Connery: I've got to ask you... about the penis mightier.
Alex Trebek: What? No nonono... That's the pen is mightier.
Connery: Gussy it up however ya want, Trebek --- What matters is, does it work? Will it really mighty my penis, man?
Trebek: It's not a product, Mr Connery.
Connery: Because I've ordered devices like that before. Wasted a pretty penny, I don't mind telling you. And if the penis mightier really works, I'll order a dozen!
Trebek: It's not a penis mightier, Mr Connery. There's no such thing.
Nicholas Cage: Wait wait wait... Are you selling penis mightiers?
Trebek: No! No I'm not!
Connery: Well you're sitting on a gold mine, Trebek.
You're thinking about this the wrong way. This is a problem of false positives. As I've pointed out before, we all know that given something is a work of genius the probability that it will look bizarre is very high. However, given that something looks bizarre, the probability that it is a work of genius is very low. Wolfram's work, right now, has all the hallmarks of the crank. Note that Einstein's ideas were radical -- and took a long time to be properly understood -- but he didn't exile himself from scholarly debate or claim that any initial skepticism about his ideas was evidence that they were right. The ideas stood up by themselves. I'll be surprised if Wolfram's do --- though of course I'm not ruling it out as impossible.
Fair enough, although I didn't quote Shalizi for his insights on any of the myriad topics that he's not an expert on. He is a paid up specialist on cellular automata and self-organization, though.
but in the final analysis is he a crank or a revolutionary genius? Who knows, but it's going to be a new nerd pastime for the next decade to argue that point.
This means he's almost certainly a crank. If actual scientists were arguing heavily about it, there might be a bit more uncertainty. But if the debate is happening amongst people whose knowledge of physics comes mainly from Star Trek, then that pretty much settles the matter in advance.
Wolfram will probably end up having a place on the intellectual fringes, worshipped by people who are often smart but who haven't bothered/aren't trained well enough to see why specialists don't really pay attention to them. In nerd idea-space Ayn Rand is the other main example of this type.
The best comment I've read about Wolfram's book comes from Cosma Shalizi, a physicist working at the Santa Fe institute, who specializes in cellular automata. He comments [scroll down on link]:
Dis-recommended: Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science [This is almost, but not quite, a case for the immortal ``What is true is not new, and what is new is not true''. The one new, true thing is a proof that the elementary CA rule 110 can support universal, Turing-complete computation. (One of Wolfram's earlier books states that such a thing is obviously impossible.) This however was shown not by Wolfram but by Matthew Cook (this is the ``technical content and proofs'' for which Wolfram acknowledges Cook, in six point type, in his frontmatter). In any case it cannot bear the weight Wolfram places on it. Watch This Space for a detailed critique of this book, a rare blend
of monster raving egomania and utter batshit insanity.]
I await solid arguments to the contrary --- ie, arguments that don't start from any of the following premises:
1. But he was a boy genius at CalTech and Feynman said so!
2. But he wrote Mathematica, which is obviously really hard!
3. But if he's right this will change the world!
4. But other Scientists are ignoring/laughing at/refuting him only because they are jealous of his enormous brain!
5. But he only ignored peer review because he's so brilliant!
6. But every work of genius always seems crazy when it first appears!
I leave it was an exercise to the reader to show why Wolfram's supporters shouldn't rely on these points (although Wolfram himself apparently does).
The book has all the marks, both positive and negative, of the very smart autodidact. On the positive side: enormous ambition, singular vision and determination to innovate. On the negative side: monomania, evangelical tone, and contempt for/unwillingness to engage with one's peers.
That last one is the most problematic. Wolfram says he doesn't expect people to understand him, or to get a negative reaction from the scientific community, and -- worse -- that this negative reaction is only to be expected etc. These are the early hallmarks of the crank.
Things to expect soon: A legion of amateur readers proclaiming him a genius and arguing that the indifferent reaction of mainstream science is somehow evidence that the book is right. Just remember: P(Cranky and Weird | Work of Genius) = High. P(Work of Genius | Cranky and Weird) = Very low.
"Oh yes, it's perfectly safe -- It's just us who are in trouble."
Nasar's flawed image of genius
on
A Beautiful Mind
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A weakness of the book that irritated me more and more as I read it was Nasar's determination to push the idea that Nash's genius was what made him such an awful person. His appalling behavior to colleagues, friends and loved-ones was inextricably tied up, according to Nasar, with his mathematical genius. Nash was an all-round asshole prior to his terrible illness. The first half of the book can be summarized as: Nash produces little work; Alienates, insults or abuses everyone he comes into contact with. Nasar continuously pushes the idea that Nash acted this way because Nash was a genius. His unworldly brilliance set him apart from (and above) his mediocre peers; he had no time for little minds; such behavior is what we must expect from great intellects, and so on. The film has even more of this attitude --- all the other faculty members are small-minded fame-grubbers jealous of Nash's brilliance.
The problem is that the book itself is full of evidence that this picture of genius is simplistic in the extreme. While Nash was there, Princeton was full of first-rate intellects --- geniuses by any yardstick --- who shared nothing of Nash's sociopathic nature. Einstein was reserved and eccentric, but good-natured. Von Neumann was articulate and cosmopolitan, and heavily involved in politics. Godel (before his paranoia set in) was sophisticated and urbane. Each of these men easily outrank Nash. None of them shared his tendency to strut around proclaiming his own genius or his habit of sneering at the worthlessness of other minds. And yet both the film and the book push all the old myths of genius. When I was a grad student at Princeton the main consequence of this myth, as far as I could tell, was that everyone had to put up with jerks who thought they could induce genius in themselves by being an asshole to everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like some tips, suggestions, and experience in living with an extra degree of intensity, depth, and general intelligence.
1. You may be unique, but you are not uniquely bright. Bear in mind that just because you are smart doesn't mean that everyone else is stupid. It is amazing how many people make this mistake.
I love learning, yet I never have found school enjoyable. I'm incredibly intense and concentrated
Well College should be better, then. However,
, yet I often become bored of specific projects in a few months.
2. Bear in mind that just because you are initially bored by something doesn't mean it isn't worth learning. This is true of College courses: You may find afterwards that it was worthwhile and not what you expected. That is why it's called "an Education."
My attention span is practically unlimited when I am interested in a topic, and I get intensely interested in it.
3. Yet you say you also get bored easily after a few months. Well, that's OK: keep an eye out for something that doesn't wear off. The advice of Stanford's John Perry is as good as any: At college take one third of your units learning something that will pay your wages afterwards; one third fulfilling requirements to the university; and one third for yourself, to find out who you are. It will be much more expensive to have a nervous breakdown in your '50s than to find out who you are while you're in college."
I'm just coming up on entering college, so most of my life is ahead of me.
4. Exactly. So don't panic yet. And don't drop out, for Christ sake. You're guaranteeing yourself a 35% cut in future earnings.
Mac OS X and Java application and applet which displays a Mars 'sunclock', a graphical representation of Mars.
.137 AU less into the bargain?
Why would I want a 24.6 hour Martian day when I can get a 4226 hour Mercury day and for
I was expecting the announcement of a $10, 3-petabyte nuclear-fusion-powered player with collapsible 60-inch plasma screen and direct bluetooth link to the Mars Rover, but all I get is this mini piece of crap. I mean, come on. In protest I will buy the 128mb NinFuju HappyListen, which only costs $200 and supports Ogg Vorbis.
There's always the Top 10 Books I Did Not Read This Year.
The only way it would work would be if it was deliberately filmed and marketed as a movie for young children.
That no-one has suggested Longhorn and Beaver should go head-to-head. But perhaps I should be browsing at -1. Or -5.
Various blogs have been talking about this recently. It seems too early to say who's right here --- the original authors have issued a vigorous interim rebuttal [pdf] of the charges, so it's hard to say what's happening. But let's not let that get in the way of a good bit of enviro-sensationalism, eh?
PHP usage in the enterprise
that by the 23rd century they would have left PHP behind.
Or maybe it just shows the durability of opens source software.
It's a trap!
Personally, I won't bother to find out first hand until they slap a recordable DVD drive in there." Why stop at a recordable DVD drive? I am holding out for an integrated Bluetooth connectivity, PS2, coffee-maker, GPS and magic 8-ball. I also want it to be solar powered and to be totally waterproof at depths of up to 5000 meters. It shoud also cost less than $20 and run Debian. These are the reasonable consumer demands of me, Joe Slashdot.
I'm sure that, by now, the relationship between George Lucas and his fans is a standard case study in counseling handbooks, codependence manuals, psychotherapy training, etc.
Fans (to counselor): I love him, he's really wonderful deep down, I know he means well and is a decent man.
(Cut to videotape) Lucas: Take this, you stupid bitch! [Smack! Punch! Ewoks! Jar-Jar!]
Fans (Sobbing): It must be my fault --- I just can't seem to please him. I know he doesn't mean to hurt me like this....
It's awful, really.
(Or is everyone on Slashdot too young to get that joke?)
Sean Connery: I've got to ask you... about the penis mightier.
Alex Trebek: What? No nonono... That's the pen is mightier.
Connery: Gussy it up however ya want, Trebek --- What matters is, does it work? Will it really mighty my penis, man?
Trebek: It's not a product, Mr Connery.
Connery: Because I've ordered devices like that before. Wasted a pretty penny, I don't mind telling you. And if the penis mightier really works, I'll order a dozen!
Trebek: It's not a penis mightier, Mr Connery. There's no such thing.
Nicholas Cage: Wait wait wait... Are you selling penis mightiers?
Trebek: No! No I'm not!
Connery: Well you're sitting on a gold mine, Trebek.
The headline for this article should be "MP3s fiddle while DVD Burns."
Hmm. Does this mean that in 2004 they'll put the thymus inside someone to see if it works, or that in 2004 they'll start trying to grow a whole human?
You're thinking about this the wrong way. This is a problem of false positives. As I've pointed out before, we all know that given something is a work of genius the probability that it will look bizarre is very high. However, given that something looks bizarre, the probability that it is a work of genius is very low. Wolfram's work, right now, has all the hallmarks of the crank. Note that Einstein's ideas were radical -- and took a long time to be properly understood -- but he didn't exile himself from scholarly debate or claim that any initial skepticism about his ideas was evidence that they were right. The ideas stood up by themselves. I'll be surprised if Wolfram's do --- though of course I'm not ruling it out as impossible.
Fair enough, although I didn't quote Shalizi for his insights on any of the myriad topics that he's not an expert on. He is a paid up specialist on cellular automata and self-organization, though.
This means he's almost certainly a crank. If actual scientists were arguing heavily about it, there might be a bit more uncertainty. But if the debate is happening amongst people whose knowledge of physics comes mainly from Star Trek, then that pretty much settles the matter in advance.
Wolfram will probably end up having a place on the intellectual fringes, worshipped by people who are often smart but who haven't bothered/aren't trained well enough to see why specialists don't really pay attention to them. In nerd idea-space Ayn Rand is the other main example of this type.
The best comment I've read about Wolfram's book comes from Cosma Shalizi, a physicist working at the Santa Fe institute, who specializes in cellular automata. He comments [scroll down on link]:
Dis-recommended: Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science [This is almost, but not quite, a case for the immortal ``What is true is not new, and what is new is not true''. The one new, true thing is a proof that the elementary CA rule 110 can support universal, Turing-complete computation. (One of Wolfram's earlier books states that such a thing is obviously impossible.) This however was shown not by Wolfram but by Matthew Cook (this is the ``technical content and proofs'' for which Wolfram acknowledges Cook, in six point type, in his frontmatter). In any case it cannot bear the weight Wolfram places on it. Watch This Space for a detailed critique of this book, a rare blend of monster raving egomania and utter batshit insanity.]
I await solid arguments to the contrary --- ie, arguments that don't start from any of the following premises:
1. But he was a boy genius at CalTech and Feynman said so!
2. But he wrote Mathematica, which is obviously really hard!
3. But if he's right this will change the world!
4. But other Scientists are ignoring/laughing at/refuting him only because they are jealous of his enormous brain!
5. But he only ignored peer review because he's so brilliant!
6. But every work of genius always seems crazy when it first appears!
I leave it was an exercise to the reader to show why Wolfram's supporters shouldn't rely on these points (although Wolfram himself apparently does).
On the other hand, seeing as the G-Forces on Coasters are
> considerably greater than even those experienced by astronauts
Who needs $20M in cash when you can head to Six Flags for a better rush?
That last one is the most problematic. Wolfram says he doesn't expect people to understand him, or to get a negative reaction from the scientific community, and -- worse -- that this negative reaction is only to be expected etc. These are the early hallmarks of the crank.
Things to expect soon: A legion of amateur readers proclaiming him a genius and arguing that the indifferent reaction of mainstream science is somehow evidence that the book is right. Just remember: P(Cranky and Weird | Work of Genius) = High. P(Work of Genius | Cranky and Weird) = Very low.
I had to work for 5 years before I got an office with windows. No way am I going back.
> If only they were using Open Source Software
> in the aviation industry...
Then what? They'd never have to upgrade? Yeah, never upgrading is something OSS users are well known for.
> I wan't to be a programmer
This sentence makes the decision for you, I'm afraid. Go to college. And pay more attention in high school English class while you're still there.
> Is it safe?
"Oh yes, it's perfectly safe -- It's just us who are in trouble."
The problem is that the book itself is full of evidence that this picture of genius is simplistic in the extreme. While Nash was there, Princeton was full of first-rate intellects --- geniuses by any yardstick --- who shared nothing of Nash's sociopathic nature. Einstein was reserved and eccentric, but good-natured. Von Neumann was articulate and cosmopolitan, and heavily involved in politics. Godel (before his paranoia set in) was sophisticated and urbane. Each of these men easily outrank Nash. None of them shared his tendency to strut around proclaiming his own genius or his habit of sneering at the worthlessness of other minds. And yet both the film and the book push all the old myths of genius. When I was a grad student at Princeton the main consequence of this myth, as far as I could tell, was that everyone had to put up with jerks who thought they could induce genius in themselves by being an asshole to everyone else.