How true is this info graphic?

Whenever I get into a Unity bug situation and have to hammer away at workaround and get frustrated i just simply tell myself.."Beats doing drywall for a living".

 

I won't hire someone who can't demonstrate prior work, and when evaluating people their prior work is far more of a focus than their degree.

Like someone else said earlier, a degree demonstrates that someone theoretically has the fundamental groundwork they'll need to get started in their field. In and of itself, that's not too useful to me. I want to know that they're already actively building upon that, because that's something I'll need them to do constantly moving forward. And if they can demonstrate that active self-learning and that it's effective then it doesn't matter much to me whether their foundation came from a degree or not.

 

This is a fantastic thread, btw. I'm learning a lot from it.

Thanks everyone!

EDIT: I just read it and it sounded snotty in my head, but I mean it.

 

On re-reading my last post here, it sounds like I don't place much value on a degree. I just wanted to clarify that I think they're extremely valuable in that they're super useful as a learning tool, and demonstrate that someone is serious enough about their field that they were willing to spend years formally studying it. The thing is that, when determining whether or not someone has relevant skills to be worth hiring, I don't care where those skills came from - only that they have them.

 

So what sort of MS certifications would you guys recommend to get into the game industry?

 

Thank you to those that have taken the time to give me advice.

The reason i am looking into programmer salaries is because I'm considering substituting my main job for something more useful. If my main job is as a junior programmer, then I will learn about programming itself and I will be better suited to review the quality of work I buy from contractors; saving me time and money in developing my games. It also will have the added benefit of being paid more and not having to risk life and limb as I do 14 days out of the month with my current main job.

I have found some bootcamps that will train you on a stack of languages and ready you for job placement at a boring, non-game place, but they have acceptance rates of 5%. I am going to save $20k and then start applying and trying my luck. I don't know of I'll be a good programmer, but I guess I'll find out this way. Worse case scenario, I'll end up with a bunch of money to buy code.

If you see a flaw in this new trajectory, your feedback is welcomed.

 

In my country the programmers salaries (in any language) commonly are between us$4.000 to us$15.000 at year, the salaries are higher if the programmer have postgraduate studies but really this is only bureaucracy because in my country the postgraduate studies means pay money for a paper.

 

I think these certificates have zero value. Companies that look for such certs are the ones you don't want to work for (I could tell you horror stories about CSC, that have rooms full of "certified" MS Web Server Admins somewhere in London that know absolutely nothing about network or web technologies. If you have to work with them you are laughing or crying...).

Even 5 year old children can pass these certs (you just have to remember the answers, no real knowledge needed): http://developers.slashdot.org/stor...t-certificated-professional-is-five-years-old

We could do the IBM DB2 certs for free in a DB lecture I had. I didn't take them, but those that did did all pass and we had no DB2 knowledge at all, they just looked at the manuals for one day. More than enough to pass all these certs.

 

@OP - It's reasonably accurate with the caveat that salaries vary HEAVILY by area and cost of living. Learning to program (any language) will open lots of career options.

Gigi

 

Source? Many studies indicate one predictor of success in math (and programming?) is perseverance, also known as grit. And that's a trait which can be both taught and learned (source - Flourish by Seligman).

Gigi

 

My own opinion and experience without any proof: perseverance can help but talent gets more important the higher the levels you go.

I feel like the effort it takes can go up exponentially with new levels of abstraction. For some people the effort it takes to really get integral and differential calculus is much larger than for people with a talent for math. Then the next level if you move it to multiple dimensions. At some level the effort needed just gets too large to be worth it. At each level of abstraction you "lose" some people that cannot get that without unreasonable effort. And passing a test and really being able to apply it are different things.

For me this point was when you should use Eigenvalue-Decomposition of functions (not matrices) to solve differential equations.
I have a talent for math, so I could get to that level with little effort compared to others, but going over that level would have cost me much effort. I maybe often sound like an arrogant prick, but I know there are people much smarter than me, like those that can get this kind of stuff without effort.

 

What on earth even is "talent"?

 

^ This. Research by Carol Dweck ('Mindset') and Anders Ericcson ('Deliberate Practice') makes a pretty persuasive case that perseverance and deliberate practice will generally trump talent in most cases, except where physical attributes matter (ex height).

Gigi

 

http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/

 

Well, the idea that talent gets more important later in your career kind of sounds backwards to me. Isn't talent usually described as natural, informal skill that someone has before they start formal learning and deliberate practice? Ie: someone starts as a "talented musician" if they easily learn the first bits seemingly without effort, and progresses to be skilled/experienced/whatever as they get practice and grow in their formal understanding. The "talent" might help them get there faster, but the formal learning and experience are the important bits and once you've got them it doesn't matter whether you were talented or not at the beginning.

It's a vague word, though, so I'm wary of discussing it too much without knowing what people mean when they say it.

 

Experience is king. I dont remember the source specifically, but in one of my psychology textbooks it talks about intelligence vs experience and how experience is more important. They tested people at jobs with very high IQ and few years experience vs average IQ persons with decade of experience. The lower IQ veterans were dominating the high IQ newbies.

Most of human 'talent' is simply learned through experience/practice. Even if one of high intelligence learns faster or someone of high education learns easier, they still have to learn the same things and will be more likely surpassed by those with more experience in most cases- work efficiency, project completion speed, etc.

I'm a bit skeptical of the above link I gave. Almost everything can be learned by most people. The brain is also very elastic, so I dont buy that some peoples brains cant program. Even if that were true, it ignores the fact that same brain can most likely be rewired through learning. As you can see, I'm not a heavy believer in right/left brain stereotypes, where someone can only be 'talented' at only one side. Give someone time and teach them- they can become fantastic artists and genius mathematicians. They dont have to choose either/or.

Besides physical limits in athleticism (and even then) what skill or talent doesn't come from years of experience or training?

 

I watched someone watch a TED talk recently mentioning that to master something may take forever, but to be competent at it takes very little time.

I also am skeptical of 'natural talent'. I am skeptical because in many cases, I bet it would be easy to prove they actually have past experience or knowledge which help them 'get it' so quickly. Like children with much talent, probably have parental influences or practice (little girl in gymnastics class who was also taught how to learn/focus, later becoming a great cheerleader in jr high surpassing her peers who were never taught so many skills.) Even learning itself is a skill.

Reminds me of AGoT where jon snow shows off his swordsmanship at the wall, and the leader points out most of the kids didnt have mentors from youth-and they've never even picked up a sword before.

 

Interesting thread. lol As someone who has been in this industry (not games but I mean IT) a long time now I agree with 1) degrees are no indicator of ability and 2) the number of "real" programmers is a tiny % of the number of people applying for jobs who claim to be very good programmers.

It has been this way my whole life. I taught myself programming when I was a teenager. Starting in BASIC and soon progressing to Assembly language. I spent hours every night learning this stuff. Buying books. Always learning. Always writing little programs. Then bigger programs. All because I enjoyed it. Honestly, I got into it because I saw the early computer and video games and I wanted to be able to make my own. I never got into games development professionally (well except for one contract position I had for a commercial game about 14 years ago but that was a one time thing I did "moonlighting").

Anyway, I remember a company I worked at 15 years ago. At that time we were developing db applications in Oracle. Oracle Designer or something like that. Pretty basic stuff. Basically it was kind of like a "big daddy" version of MS Access. I had never actually used this before but had done a lot of software development including db dev in Access. It was easy to pick up this Oracle development in a couple days time. There were several other people on the team. Two had been there for many years. One was going through college to get his Master's degree in IT and while working part-time. Another was a new hire having very recently completed his Bachelor's degree. The BS guy was let go before 45 days had passed. The manager came in one day and told me "we had to let him go. It was pretty obvious we were basically paying him to continually put bugs into the application and then we were paying you to remove them." The others were "okay" but in time all but one was let go and my workload increased each time. But so did my pay. The manager joked one day about how he was saving a lot of money because he could basically get rid of "dead weight" and increase my pay by 20% of what he had been paying them. It was good for me and for the company. This continued until there were literally only two of us left. They didn't even bother hiring people any more. It was an odd situation for sure but it helps to illustrate the points I think.

Fast-forward to another job another company 10 years ago. This was one using Perl with Oracle on the backend strictly as a db. Web app. It was a contract gig for a large company. I saw the job listing and spent a few days learning Perl. Applied. Got an interview. They gave a Perl test. At our first team meeting the manager told us I was the only person who actually was able to write the program (just a simple script to connect to a db and retrieve some data from a table and display it). The thing to take away from this is that it meant the other 7 people who had anywhere from 5 to 12 years of professional programming experience were not able to write the program. At the end of that project I was the only person who was asked to stay on for new work.

I won't keep going on with this but the past 10 years has been the same way. I have seen many people with IT degrees who were basically worthless at software design & development. Even very small scope of work stuff. And I have seen others who never had any formal education beyond high school who were truly masters of software engineering. The difference between these groups is quite simple. The bad ones do it to "get a job" and "make good money". The good ones do it because they have a passion for it. They spent their own time, their free time after school or work, learning programming on their own. They bought books. They developed dozens and even hundreds of little applications all on their own. Continually improving their skills. They did it even when they never made any money from it or even thought about making money from it.

It is a crazy thing for sure. I got along good with the hiring manager at my last job very well. And he often asked me if I knew of anyone who was truly good that was looking for a job. They were having a very difficult time finding qualified applicants. And it wasn't because they were not offering good pay or perks. They put them up in hotels, gave them a weekly food allowance (yes, they actually paid for their breakfast, lunch and dinner IF they chose to go out to eat) and a very competitive salary on top of that. They certainly didn't have a lack of applicants. Anyway, he told me less than 1/10th of 1% of the applicants were actually good.

That is the reality. So when I see things like this I just kind of nod my head and say to myself "yep".

 

I don't talk about later in career.

I'm mean more abstract maths. In my experience you can get even people bad in maths to get differentiation and integrals with enough work. But the higher the maths gets, the exponentially more time you need for that. So people that only get differentials with a lot of work will need very very long to get much more abstract maths like higher order differential equations or Hilbert Space. And the higher you go the exponentially stronger the effect is.
To the point that you can say some people cannot pick up certain maths skills independent of how much time you give them.

[Side note:
that is also what I use to know how good a lecture/course/college/degree is: the fail ratio for the people that take the course/exam the second time must be much higher than that for first time takers. That shows that it filters out people that just cannot get it even if they have twice the time to get it.]

It's like with music. Many people can become good musicians with training. But most can never become exceptionally good musicians however much training they get.

There are people made for music, and there are people made for maths.

Anybody can get "not bad" at almost everything with enough training, but not many can become exceptionally good. For that you need the talent. And talent often shows by being able to pick up the basic skill much easier than most people and being good much faster.
Of course there are exceptions, like slow starters in maths that get much better once they get the basics. But that effect happens at beginning of maths career and not towards the end.

 

It was your statement about "the higher level you go" that confused me there.

 

Proof? Or is it just a coincidence that a vast number of famous musicians are famous because they knew, were mentored by, or had connections with- OTHER famous musicians?

The same can be said of many famous "geniuses". Whether in Philosophy or Business, Art or Science.

Here is my challenge to this silly thought that natural talent even exists, especially in something like art (which is entirely based on individual opinion as to what defines 'good' or 'talent').

http://geniussquared.com/1607/mentor-and-be-mentored/

That first part alone just goes to show that even those "geniuses" who many think "were just naturals" were, in fact, TAUGHT to be genius.

Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle -> Alexander the Great -> List Goes On

Human beings can only specialize in so many areas of expertise. There is a limit, simply for the fact we aren't immortal (at least a limit with life on earth in our dimension, anyway). This means that anyone can be a 'genius' at their special field, while others who don't spend anywhere near as much time in that field would be laughed at.

An uneducated redneck plumber, for instance, who has 30 years of plumbing experience, would laugh at a graduate from MIT who tried to......er...plumb. Sure, that MIT graduate could become a great plumber very quickly (theoretically) but he would be incapable of having the experience of that 30 year uneducated redneck. He would have to have at least many many years of experience to catch up. And even then, who is to say he is invited to all the plumber parties or accepted socially at the plumber's union? There is more to plumbing than just to plumb. And stuff. What about the business or politics side dealing with all the wrench gangs who want to bust the kneecaps of that encroaching MIT student stealing all their business? Who is the genius then, when his kneecaps are busted up?

There are hundreds of forms of intelligence. I'm with AngryPenguin. Wtf even is 'talent'? I am skeptical it even exists. Perhaps 'talent' is simply an unfocused understanding of something based on similar knowledge in past conditioning. Immeasurable pieces of knowledge combined with unique experiences which simply equate to what SEEMS like natural talent.

Talent which is nothing more than smoke, mirrors, and experience/knowledge. Experience/Knowledge which anyone can achieve through practice (save physical learning handicaps).

I'm always skeptical of "the best" of something. WHY are they the best musician? the genius inventor? the best philosopher? Is it because of that mythical "talent" which allows them to go beyond the typical cap? Is it their past experiences in life and other pieces of knowledge which allow them to think outside the box? Coincidence? Fame? Money? Connections? History written by the winners? Timing?

Obviously a genius who invents the lightbulb in 2015, even if entirely alone, would have a hard time convincing anyone he was a genius for it. His talent would not be seen as greater than those who originally invented the lightbulb. So what defines talent? Whether or not society says so? Even so, who is "Society"? And what if that original inventor just stole it all from another inventor who did it first and better? Who is the talent? And did either of those people one day just wake up and say "I don't know how to read. I have no education. I have never invented anything before. Let me try to invent a lightbulb." No. So talent is what now? It's taking other's past knowledge and then doing something new with it?

 

I would tentatively agree with the statement, though I wouldn't necessarily believe it comes down to "talent".

 

Sry, I edited the post. Hit "Post Reply" after that single word. oops! Obviously it had to get a mandatory wall of text. One word was not enough.

 

If you think just hard work and experience is enough to make anyone a genius all I can say is the world would be overflowing with geniuses to a point of ridiculousness, but it's not. Perhaps you just haven't run into people in life who have such an aptitude for something that it seems as easy as breathing to them but someday you will and you'll know it when you see it. That being said, I don't necessarily agree that certain people can't learn programming, that seems a bit farfetched.

 

I'd beg to differ.

Big companies snatch up experienced employees very quickly. Especially in computer science fields.

If you have 30 years as a programmer, you're probably one of the best there is. You've been there, done that. If that is all you've done since 1985 as a career, it would be hard to NOT say "might be genius."

Genius also implies intelligence. Intelligence is irrelevant when hiring employees to do a project for you. Experience is king. You want experienced people.

There are studies which prove that someone with significant experience at a job, of an average IQ, will seriously outperform a "genius" (high IQ) with only a few years experience.

Once again, implying that "genius" is either worthless compared to experience, or that "genius" in actuality is more about EXPERIENCE than it is about "talent" or intelligence. (Either the high IQ 'genius' loses, or the real genius is the average IQ employee).

You know what all "genius" celebrities and historical figures have in common? They are experienced in their specialized field. One will be known as a genius businessman, another a genius philosopher, the next a genius at mathematics or physics. If they have multiple "genius" specialties, they will relate to one another. Fields which have foundations of other fields. (For example, someone who is experienced with physics may also become an expert at mathematics. An expert musician may find it easier to master sound effects in video games.)

How many geniuses do you know which have <10 years of experience? <5 years? Do you know any that have only 1-3 years of experience? Not likely.

How many geniuses in history have multiple, entirely unrelated expertise? Even so, how many have more than a handful of total expertise at that? Even related ones.

The world won't overflow with geniuses, because not everyone

A) Has the opportunity to receive a quality mentor, specialize in a field of expertise which goes into more complex topics (Science, Technology, Medicine), or even have the chance to chase higher end jobs. So you WILL find geniuses- they will just be blue collar geniuses. People that companies know and trust to deliver goods, do a simple task, or man complex machinery. By all definitions of the word, there are highly competent "genius" level employees in all fields.

B) Has the desire to glean correct information, achieve motivation to learn/grow, or even have the desire to be good at what they do. Many people do not care if they are not the best at what they do. In fact, many jobs are considered just that: Jobs. It is hard to be motivated to be the best, when your heart is not truly in the project. Why would anyone want to become an expert or 'genius' at fast food fry cooking? One could certainly learn to out class all other fry cooks, but why would they?

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger springs to mind. Mr Universe, actor, real estate, politics. That's not to say there weren't advantages transferred from each to the next (being Mr Universe is probably a great way to get into auditions, having an actor's savings probably helps build a real estate portfolio, being recognised and big in local business helps in politics, etc) but there's still the fact that he was successful at each of those different things in their own right. Plenty of people don't have similar achievements in a single field let despite having their own relevant benefits.

On the proviso that you're willing to adapt and an open and willing learner, definitely. It's easy to stop learning and fall behind if you start thinking you already know all you need to, or that you know better than others, or that your learning days are over.

 

You just named one person, who has very particular strengths which relate to ALL the listed expertise.

His charisma and attractiveness, combined with his love for having lots of muscles. Mr.Universe directly works for him being an action hero. An actor not known for his phenomenal acting, but for his charisma, his action prowess, his looks, etc. Real Estate and Politics are strikingly similar. It's all about charisma and selling to people. Charisma is also a big part of acting and I wouldn't be surprised if Mr.Universe too.

So you're saying this one guy, who has a very honed skill in one or two RELATED areas (athleticism and charisma), is an expert at multiple RELATED areas.

Mr.Universe- developed during years of hard work as well as natural athelticism, learned and natural charisma.
Acting, based on his athleticism and charisma- developed during Mr.Universe.
Real Estate, based on his charisma- developed during acting.
Politics, based on his charisma- developed during real estate.

That only makes sense, and goes to prove my point.

 

I remember two individuals back when I was in a Java course. Neither had bothered to keep up to date and both had lost their jobs when the language they were using (COBOL) stopped being used in their workplace.

 

Wouldn't take long for someone with decades of experience to catch back up and then surpass their younger, less experienced peers.

Their massive amount of experience in technology would only assist in learning what little they'd need to catch up upon. This is especially true if they actually had a lot of experience in programming (rather than never learning or growing, and simply keeping a job/career by slinking by).

Obviously growing and learning is part of experience. Not talent. Not genius. Experience. Even becoming obsolete is based on lack of EXPERIENCE with something new. Not talent. Not genius.

 

I mean the elite on certain instruments. Take the best violin players of the world. That is of course not objective. But there are some where most people can agree are great. Of course they had very much training, but many could not achieve that no matter how much they train.

Take Albert Einstein. You really think many people could come up with his theories with however much training?

Or take Hawkins, during his studies he initially was very lazy, because he could still solve the problems most others couldn't solve. So he did not study a lot, it was not needed for him to be one of the better students. One already saw then that he was different than most. When he knew about his illness he started studying harder because he thought he would die soon.

I also did not imply that. But most will never be a Carmack, no matter how much training.
And in programming it is extreme, there are people that are vastly more efficient than others. And no training in the world can change that.

For standard programming experience is king.
It depends very much of what the employee is expected to do. In R&D you maybe have to do stuff nobody has experience in. Like algorithms for quantum computers or new machine learning ideas, or implementing all the stuff from the newest scientific papers.

Of course somebody that is smart and has experience is better. But many ideas take years from academy to end up in the industry, so newly graduates sometimes have more experience with some ideas than the guys from the industry.

 

You make it sounds like I didn't lay out the exact path and why each did in fact directly support the next.

Honestly, you're trying to tell me that you genuinely call "Mr Universe" and "Real Estate mogul" as being related? I think not.

Sure, it's easy with hindsight to look back and say "charisma can apply to each, therefore they're related", but in any other context I highly doubt you'd say so. If I asked you to hire a real estate manager would you head to the local beauty pageant, gym or body building competitions? I think not.

 

Yes, they could.

Do you know what happens when a country finally allows their people to have an education? The opportunity to gain experience and learn?

The Renaissance happens.

http://www.ducksters.com/history/how_did_the_renaissance_start.php

 

There are considerable differences between COBOL and Java. Both of them had dropped by approximately the halfway point.

 

This is commonly posited, but I've never seen any evidence. I have seen evidence to the contrary (perhaps a Malcolm Gladwell book?), and while that could of course be selected and/or suffer confirmation bias, none of the people who refute it who I'm aware of have provided an equivalent or successfully shown the flaws in how it was gathered.

 

Dude, if you read my post I listed in there exactly how each supported the next. What you're saying simply isn't evidence that the guy had genuinely above average skills in at least 3 loosely related areas. Yes, he had one natural trait which would be beneficial to all. But there are plenty of good looking, charming people who can't boast anything similar, and there are also plenty of uncharismatic people who've achieved success in at least three of those four areas. I'm not saying his charisma is completely unrelated, but pinning the whole thing on that alone is folly.

 

The Renaissance happened over far more time than it took Einstein to crank out his two most influential theories. If everyone in The Renaissance was as productive as Einstein...

 

Hey, all I'm saying is the following

1. Human being's expertise is derived almost entirely based on experience and knowledge, NOT intelligence or 'talent'.
   
2. "Talent" and "Genius" are both subjective and possibly imaginary, not to mention highly biased. Very probable that they are real, but extremely exaggerated. (How can we know how smart Einstein was? Simply because he did some great work? How can we know others would not have done the same work if they were in his place, given the same opportunities? What if Einstein was a serious racist? Would he be less genius than Arnold? Why prioritize a genius of science over a genius of charisma?)
   
3. "Genius" and commonly "Talented" celebrities are always experienced in their field of expertise. They do not derive their expertise from nothingness, but from all the knowledge which came before them. They do not become experts in days or months, even years, but closer to decades.
   
4. "Experts" in a field rarely are experts in other fields as well. When they are, they are almost always heavily related (Expert in two areas of related Science, Two expertise based almost entirely on Charisma, etc.)
5. Intelligence is extremely overrated. Experience is not.
6. Thus if "Genius" or "Talent" equates to Intelligence, then they are also overrated. If unrelated to intelligence, then what could possibly be the definition of "Genius" or "Talent" if not experience?
7. If given the opportunity and motivation, we would see more "genius" level of experts. When a country gives access to public education for example, you begin to see "geniuses" sprouting forth like a waterfall. This is because they now have the opportunity.
   
8. We actually DO have a flood of geniuses. They are just more normal than everyone thinks. Geniuses of old are often very flawed individuals, sometimes with irrational or very ignorant beliefs in addition to their 'genius'. Some are even socially retarded, meaning their social intelligence is very low. Also most people do not consider a genius plumber or genius carpenter to be a "genius". So does genius only apply to the sciences? I think not.
   
9. If there are hundreds of forms of intelligence, how can one even define "Genius"? Exactly.
10. More likely than not, it is intelligence (brain cells) and not "talent" which increases the chance of "genius". It is more probable that einstein simply learned FASTER than his peers, and thus was able to achieve more experience in a shorter amount of time. The capacity of expertise would then be limited by the person's life span and rate of learning. Thus intelligence is just experience, in a more dense state.

Overall, the entire premise of "Talent" or "Genius" is subjective, exaggerated, dramatized, and possibly even all an imaginary stereotype given to people by those who don't actually think, unbiased, about the reality behind the scenes.

 

You honestly think that?
So you say all other physicists at his time were just lazy or did not work as hard? Because he has made many major contributions, not just special and general relativity, starting at 21 years of age.

I would argue that maybe 2% of mankind have the intelligence to understand the maths in general relativity if you train them for years. And that is incredibly different from coming up with it in the first place. For the other 98% no amount of training can achieve that. You would disagree on that.

Still, if you think anybody could be Einstein with enough training then I have to doubt your sanity.

 

'Nuff said.

 

You're right, I must be an idiot to think that given the opportunity, people are only limited by their physical limitations and the motivation which drives them.

Take note I never said anybody can do anything. Obviously there are people limited by their physical body. Although even then we have people who are otherwise considered disabled performing spectacular athleticism or people considered stupid displaying savant syndrome.

You don't have to be lazy to be motivated to do things besides work, contemplate complex topics, or innovate new ideas.
You can be a very hard worker, and still avoid what you feel are needlessly difficult tasks.

Also, you seem to ignore one of the biggest portions supporting my idea: Opportunity.

Not everyone is given the opportunity to have the same mentors, the same life experiences, the same understanding (which results FROM cumulative experiences). Not everyone is given the opportunity to be written down as a "genius" in history because they were the right person, at the right time, experiencing the right thing, asking the right questions in the right way.

It is a discredit and disservice to those which preceded Einstein, who did not reach his conclusions for one reason or another. A lot of "genius" results from the failure of others, just as much as the success.

For all we know, Einstein could have been a worthless contribution if someone before him did not already discredit Alchemy as a science. Who knows- maybe he would have chased that idea instead, never having the opportunity to pursue legitimate science. Everyone knows of Einstein. No one knows of the genius alchemists who helped form the foundation that Einstein would use to become a "genius".

^ From Wikipedia, on Alchemy

So did the geniuses in the time of Alchemy, fail the genius test simply because they didn't have the OPPORTUNITY to know alchemy is a protoscience?

You have the burden of proof to show us that Einstein was more intelligent than less known "geniuses" or even people considered NOT to be "genius" for their "stupid" belief in transmuting lead to gold. The fact you can't prove this, only supports the idea that "genius" or "talent" is a dramatized stereotype or exaggerated social construct we use to reward Achievement not actual ability or competence.

My theory is that Einstein was not just a person of intelligence, which defined his achievments. Instead, he was a person of experience, opportunity, and timing (the foundation of knowledge preceding him).

Achievement does not equate to Intelligence or Experience. There is more than enough scientific research to suggest that many different factors come into play when figuring out why some people "achieved genius" while others died of famine.

Thanks

When you try to think outside the box and ponder common ways of thinking by contemplating actual scientific research you've read in the past and questioning the validity of stereotypes, isn't it great when people start throwing needless insults your way?

"You must be insane. How DARE you question our stereotypes and social constructs!"

How dare I indeed.

 

See post about Einstein above. He did with 21 what almost all other physicists can only dream off. And not once, he had many incredible breakthroughs in a young age.

Maybe that young age and non-experience was even needed to do something that basically broke the current world view.

Many very smart people tried to solve the problems Einstein solved (with similar background), so you can say not anybody could come up with it.

>> "Why prioritize a genius of science over a genius of charisma"
Because one is objective (solving problems nobody else could solve) and brings mankind new knowledge and technology, could even shake world views. While the other brings us what?

 

Charisma can be equated to art.

You're starting an age old argument between those who dismiss art as being worthless, and those who accuse science of being cold.

With Science, you may save a life.
Without Art, that life is not worth living.

You're acting as if charisma, art, or anything that isn't Science- is somehow of a lesser value simply because...of why?

Because knowledge is somehow more important than happiness?
Because technology is more important than expression?

Says who?
This is merely your opinion. And if you ask the right people, a cold, calculated opinion at that.

Exactly why I say: "Why prioritize a genius of science over a genius of charisma".

 

Arguin' on the internet since I was 11 damn years old. Short, sweet and to-the-point or highly informative posts go on ignored, meanwhile the pithy back-and-forth goes on and on and on...

What is "talent", Talent would be inherent, intrinsic value. Like a person with a beautiful singing voice, they're talented. They can go further in the music business than the average joe. No matter how hard you try, you can't make yourself have a beautiful singing voice. It's just talent. Someone with incredible balance, coordination, etc. who excels in a sport or dance even from a very young age, they're wired that way... it's talent. You have it, or you do not have it.

So when you take a kid and give them a computer, and they teach themselves Basic when they're 12 with no help from anyone, and they keep learning because they've got an inherent knack for analysis and technical thinking, problem solving and all that jazz, that person is talented. Although in some ways, a highly analytical mind is more a liability than an asset (I'm looking at you, social life) point is that it's just something that some people have and some people do not have.

Interestingly enough, it seems like programmers like to argue on the internet, as well. So hey, we're all talented at arguing, here. Arguing, Arguments, Logic. It's pretty much the same thing as what you do when you write a program. So, I guess it all makes sense but Man, it is not normal to be the way I am.

 

Of course opportunity and timing are there as well. But if you look at the complexity of the maths involved it singles out at least 99.9% of humans to be Einstein. And you do not just need maths, you also must be crazily creative. But yes, maybe you include that in "people limited by their physical body".

 

WTH? Einstein?

Okay, let me tell you a little story about geniuses... once there was a lot of people who all agreed and all studied the same books, etc. None of them ever exceeded their professors and they all died in obscurity.

One day, along comes a guy and he starts experimenting with dangerous things and then he discovers something that none of the academics ever did. They call him a genius, write books about his findings and then start studying those books.

If you want to ensure that you will never excel, focus on the achievements of others. Mimic others. Follow in the footsteps of others. On the other hand, if you want to actually live your life and be awesome, just follow your passions and just let your freak flag fly. People will call you all sorts of colorful obscenities and ostracize you from all sorts of stuff, cause that's just what people do. Doesn't matter. Eventually, they're going to end up studying your findings or marveling at your achievements, or something like that. Mostly because you can do things other people can't do if you just do your own thing while they sit around rehashing the last guy's discoveries.

 

I looked into your strange claim that Einstein, "did at 21 what almost all other physicists can only dream off."

There is nothing to be found on Wikipedia of any of his achievements until 1905, which would make him 26. (If wikipedia is wrong, you're free to edit it with all the 21 year old genius.)

When he was 37, he published a paper on the general theory of relativity.

You know what he DID do at 21? Graduate.

So after his extensive execution and decades of experience learning and studying, he achieved something brilliant.

This only goes to show that opportunity, education, and thus EXPERIENCE / KNOWLEDGE, not merely intelligence, is the foundation for most "genius" or "talent".

I'm not saying he was not intelligent. I am simply saying he did not, at 21, blow everyone out of the water. He released his revolutionary paper at 37 years old. Not as a kid. As a very experience man who had a significant education.

Also, this is just one person- a potential fluke even he was "genius" or "talented". Other people could achieve the same things, given opportunity, motivation, and timing. Even if it took them longer because their intelligence was lower, they could still achieve it. As many scientists DO achieve late in life. Or early. Or randomly. The time at which they achieve is less relevant, as opportunity and great timing can lead to early invention or late. However, experience is nearly ALWAYS mandatory to achievement.

So what should we do? Let's take a look at other "geniuses" and their accomplishments. Sure, it won't lead to the foundation of modern physics. However, if it's in a similar field (Science) but not so ground-breaking- any rational person can agree it is still genius. It is still invention. Innovation.

Axel Cappelen is credited as the person who performed the first open heart surgery. His age? 37. Exactly the same age as Einstein when he released his paper on the theory of relativity. His background? Education and Experience. Was he talented? Genius? Sure. Yet what does that mean? My claim was that it means experience and education, combined with opportunity and timing. It means a lot of different things- not one vague definition of "talent" which is contributed to geniuses who achieved innovation, yet this 'talent' ignores or at least downplays their EXPERIENCE and EDUCATION resulting from their OPPORTUNITY and TIMING.

A disservice to humanity which did not have the same opportunity.

For all we know, a girl of average intelligence just now died in a nation plagued with famine, who- if given the opportunity, would have cured cancer. Who knows. If intelligence just means quicker learning, then why does it even matter? Why does talent or genius matter, if all you need is results? Results which take experience and experimentation, along with some luck and a foundation of education. Results which can be achieved in time, by a large number of people who are motivated to learn.

 

Hogwash.

To say that, given time and proper teaching, most people are literally incapable of complex math, is like the link I provided which claims most people just plain can't program. Which also has legitimacy.

It's difficult to say. I am capable of learning anything thanks to biology. I honestly don't know if a normal IQ person is capable of complex thought. I'd like to think they are. I'd like to think I am not highly intelligent, but just a learned person with lots of opportunity. That others could easily surpass me in this area or that if given the same (or better) opportunity, motivation, or education.

I know people who struggled through school, but learning disabilities or reduce cognitive capacity is different. If someone is literally incapable of holding memory, they cannot be an expert at memory retrieval. What I discuss is the average person. A healthy brain, with no physical dysfunction.

I like to think optimistically, and hopeful.

It's an age old argument. At least for me. Are most people stupid, or just ignorant? That is a question I've contemplated for a long time, but honestly most things seem to point to ignorant- not stupid. And I'd like to believe most people are indeed capable of intelligence. If they're capable of intelligence, they're capable of learning complex math, one step at a time. They're capable of being an Einstein.

That doesn't mean they will ACHIEVE an Einstein, or be seen as an Einstein. It just means that if switched with him, they could theoretically achieve the same thing, if all the stars aligned correctly (opportunity, luck/fortune/coincidence/happenstance).

 

Given it's from 2004 it's useless.... it would be like looking at processor comparisons from 2004 and basing that on what computer to buy.

 

I just turned down a job on oDesk from a guy wanting me to write a simple graphs program for him. I checked the pdf for the picking of one of the 7 graphs he said to choose from. in it was this.."You may have been working in pairs in the practical labs, but this piece of work must be done individually. Discussion ideas with your colleagues is OK, but the final piece of work should be your own. " I wrote back and told him I refuse to do his schoolwork for him so he can get a degree and then go out and muscle real talent out of a job with his degree gotten from others work.

 

IRC his math professor suggested he drop the course as he was lazy. He stole his GR theory from work by others he grabbed whilst a clerk at the patent office. Einstein is overrated. Tesla and Rutherford and Keely ..now there was real genius. The speed of light is not a constant. It can be slowed down to 37km a second when going through a cloud of supercooled cesium atoms. Ergo..he is full of it and his most famous equation has a variable and not a constant.