I wonder if the Nobel Prize (in sciences) also contributes to the lone genius myth? It seems to me that the people who are awarded the prize are often maybe the head of the team that made the important discovery. They may not even have had the key insights or conducted the key experiments themselves. Just discovered your channel and subbed, by the way. No way is this down to the UA-cam algorithm. 😉
Thanks so much for the comment and thanks for subscribing. Yes, the Nobel Prize is a tricky issue. On the one hand, it is important to acknowledge big achievements and discoveries, and it helps draw the public's attention to the importance of science. But the prize in science can only be awarded to a team of 3 people maximum, and nowadays teams are much bigger. It definitely contributes to a winner-takes-all mentality in science and makes it all about the individual. I would like them to change the rules to award the the science prize to groups, like they do with the Nobel Peace Prize, which can be awarded to organisations without a restriction on size.
I think the $1M price tag on the award probably necessitates them to limit the number of winners. You don't wanna shell out $23M for a whole team of people, even if they do cure cancer.
A similar thing plays out in art too. People think that being good at art is something innate or something that you’re born with, where as in reality it’s a lot of hard work. Similarly people think that artistic ideas come from nowhere, and originality is important, when in reality it’s a big collaborative effort, with people building on each others ideas over generations.
As people become more narcissistic and stop being team players what's your take on the fact many producers and rappers are using ai beats and ai lyric generators to make hits
It's not a myth. It's just also extremely rare. There are people of singular ability in certain areas. There is actually plenty of evidence to support it. What we don't have is an understanding of why.
At least we get to watch Elon Musk very publicly destroy the Lone Genius trope - hard for him to LARP as Tony Stark when he's running two companies into the ground
Thanks for the comment! It is true! I think we can still have talented individuals with incredible skills, we just need to remember it is rare that people work alone to get things done.
The lone genius is a sad reality in today's time as IQs drop and EQs drop as well man is going through social moral ethical economical degeneracy that is also issued out by the government and moral decay but there is hope alas thanks to ai and robotics man can literally be a one man band if he systematises his work strategises his work structures his work with a long short mid term vision on not just the work but how to eat from it and can also handle the loneliness which is what usually cripples and crumbles many. But the sad truth the universe and society is kinda forcing us to be lone guns because many of us are renegade pioneers and mavericks ahead of our times in spirit and in mind. As my grandpa used to say never have wait on a great idea act upon it now before it is too late.
@11:57 I see no villainy here. Re Tony Stark: you called him a superhero; his super-power is super-genius. (We should not expect super-powers.) A "better" person should be held to higher standards, not lower ones. I suspect much of the real issue comes down to powerful individuals taking credit beyond their due. You know the light-bulb guy? He didn't invent the light-bulb at all, but he did a good job of inventing industrialized research and development. And then he took credit when one of his employees made it work satisfactorily.
this is not meant as a dig but do you honestly not like the idea that some people having more natural talents for certain field's? I am genuinely curious, love the continent you output just curious.
While you really do not have "Lone Genius" in fields that need a lot of experimental verification like f.ex. physic and biology there are many fields where at least the "Lone scientist" are often the case simply because so few are actively researching in a given field.
I thinks it’s just a culture of individualism, we reward collective effort to an individual. That’s why I really love this year Nobel peace prize. Especially chemistry ⚛️ the winner brought the whole team with who work on the discovery.. I think that was something special
Thanks for the comment! I would like them to change the rules to award the the science prizes to groups, like they do with the Nobel Peace Prize, which can be awarded to organisations.
When folks talk about individualism it makes me think of people on the fringe. Because if you think of how most innovations start they like diffusion of innovation in the sense a lone gun has an idea doesn't pan out gets ridiculed then with time things get funneled mainstream. I feel what is killing sciences/ivory towers if we honest like most science even the soft ones is the stagnation that comes from approval getting whether accolades or grants from paymasters. We need to go back to the days of inventors and dudes that patent shit they are truly creating and discovering shit plus they getting paid for their discovery no conformity true and real science not wanting approval. They really uplifting man because if we being honest most science is currently being used to control people for money power thus leading to creating predictable people that create a feedback loop that feeds into this loop. The individual shall reign again maybe not mainstream because people cannot handle that but it shall because as a society we need it the game is stagnating we need a renaissance badly
Subscribed and liked. I am a computer science student and to be honest working alone is tough. But you what is the weirdest part people who I know in computer science can't help me in solving my problems. Its through internet forums I get the most help from. I think it is maybe due to the fact that computer science is so vast that not many specializes in what you are working on.
Thanks so much for the support! I don't work in computer science, but I use a lot of R and other stats programs for data analysis, and I also find online forums really helpful for solving coding problems, although I am sure what you do is way more complex! Like you say, sometimes you have unique issues that someone a million miles away can help with. Thanks again for the comment :)
People seem to think history works like a game of Civilisation IV, where each culture develops up the same linear ladder going stone, bronze, iron, steel, writing, philosophy, war machines, etc. It's a very damaging and perjorative narrative, especially to those people groups who just never had (or were just given) the opportunity to develop along the same paths as others at all, if you even consider it to be a 'path'. Love your content btw! Thank you UA-cam Algorithm!
Alan Turing worked a lot with Alonzo church (and other researchers), and they are both credited for inventing Lambda Calculus. Of course, the movie evacuated Church.
Really interesting concept. It also applies to pseudoscience. Climate deniers, the Discovery institute, and other pseudoscience organizations rely on this idea to make themselves appear more credible to a general audience.
"Be alone-that is the secret of invention: be alone, that is when ideas are born." -Nikola Tesla. However, 6:22-6:30 is the MOST important part of this video. Yes, very important, every math equation, programming language, quantum computing, mechanical repair, etc. was figured out by people in the past!!!!!! We are not self made people learning everything by ourselves, but the internet has made it possible to access this information and apply in our lives.
Preach! This mythos is the same reason we end up with democratically elected dictators, why income inequality is seen as a motivating good by many, and many more societal issues.
I've always been annoyed with talent abuse by writers like this. Like ooo my character has SEVEN PHDS AND AN IQ OF 1000 OHH YEAH IT'LL BE SO BADASS. It's lazy and annoying.
Not sure why anyone would even want to get seven PhDs-By the time they were done with their final dissertation they’d be too old to do anything with any of ‘em! 😉
When I was in my late teens, the BBC broadcast a series about JR . .. no not Ewing in Dallas but Oppenheimer. Starring Sam Waterston as the eponymous lead, this looked at the the life and politics of the leader of the Manhattan project. What this series did so well was to show the thousands of others involved in this project.
The Manhattan project team was huge. I doubt that there has ever been such concentration of genius gathered to solve a single problem in modern human history. One could make an argument for the ‘92 Olympic Dream Team, I suppose. 😁)
I always liked the saying that when you make something, you make the worst one. The Wright brothers made the worst airplane, then people built on, Flemming figured out mold to treat bacteria, but then people built on to it. Not that it is important but personally my favorite scientist was always Marie Currie, she just always appealed to me, although her husband helping her was always something I knew (although I wish I could go back and be a fly on their walls). In high school I loved chemistry and wanted to be a chemist, but I figured I wasn't smart enough because my high school advance chem I hadn't come up with any amazing breakthroughs and clearly that meant I wasn't good enough for it. I wonder if I was subconsciously feeling that way because of the lone genius myth. Either way, I'm now in tech trying my best to let myself ask for help. Absolutely love your videos!
In context of "scientists working together to solve a crisis in a movie", other example other than Apollo 13 is *Shin Godzilla* from 2016. I like how the protagonist of that movie are the open-minded/younger generation of the Japanese government instead of a lone hero or a lone genius scientist.
Thanks so much for the comment, and thanks for providing another example. I probably could have done a whole video of just clips from different movies!
When you have the genius's picture and a caption and that's the most you remember from your studies I think that creates a collective misunderstanding among ex-students hehe
Wait in that scene from beautiful mind i cannot see how that is a nash equilibrium, isn't a nash equilibrium one in which unilateral defection is worst for the defactor?, assuming the blonde is higher in a pay matrix then shouldnt defecting when everyone has chosen someone else? I guess if you put some sort of system of mind reading in place in which players assume that their choice of actiok is going to be others choice maybe, but still i dont get how that scene is depecting a nash equilibrium.
Yeah as someone who's friends with a some extremely successful and talented Math Professors, I definitely agree. A lot of people who know them just think they come up with all their research and results by themselves, but they are constantly reading other research papers and messaging other math professors to advance their research and publish papers so quickly.
And then you run into that kid who solves everything from arithmetic and pre-algebra with "pretty shapes of numbers on the page and their patterns between them" (harmonies of numbers and series of infinities) in middle school, who is from a poor family, and never had any exposure to any of that material from elsewhere... The anecdoting to disclaim "the myth" forgets that "the myth" became a stereotype... for a reason.. (I actually know that kid, by the way! His English grammar teacher, of all people, was the one who got curious and asked "first, why are you doing math in my class and... second, what ARE you doing!?"
@J. Bradley Bulsterbaum yeah both those math professors were that kid in high school and college. But I'll let ya in on a secret. They eventually get to a certain level and have to read lots of math books and collaborate with other mathematics themselves to keep progressing. Granted they pickup the content of a math books/papers quicker than a lot of people would, but natural talent only goes so far before collaboration and honing are needed.
@@infinitelink I was most certainly the student in high school who was the "lone genius" that solved everything with no effort, came up with formulae on my own, and was teaching myself university level calculus in my free time. Now I'm a 4th year math major and I'm very much just another student, I work together with my peers and we both provide insights to eachother without one of us being some "supergenius" that doesn't need to put in any effort. Problems are hard, challenging, and rewarding, and most certainly not easy to any of us. An initial surprising talent doesn't stay as surprising as you move up, sometimes you just end up like all the other math majors, and that's okay and nothing to be afraid of. It's a very impressive feat to be able to understand this level of mathematics in and of itself, but by no means will someone like this remain some supergenius leagues ahead of all their peers forever. It only takes you so far before the material catches up with you. For the record, I'm studying group representations primarily right now. A very rich subject, my favorite as of now.
I call it "The Gauntlet Effect" after the 1985 game. Basically a sword & sorcery team comprised of 4-5 characters, each with their own strengths and weaknesses use their combined efforts work together to win levels. Sci-fi/fantasy stories have relied on this model (even before "Gauntlet") for ages because it allows critical skills to be spread out among a recurring cast of 4-5 characters who save the day in varying combinations. It's a dramatic formula designed to simplify stories and characters. It's lazy but boy-howdy does it ever *work.* One thing nobody seems to be considering is how difficult it is to tell a story--especially in film--with a dozen protagonists of varying screen time. It's much easier to pick the one scientist who had the most linear involvement and is the most familiar to the public. They also used "condensed characters" or "invented characters" (which I hate the most in biopics) to combine real people into a single character based on their pro-/antagonistic qualities. Also, getting the audience up to speed with the long, complicated immersion with dense scientific information that they aren't familiar with requires masterclass-level editing...much easier to have Alan Turing have a eureka moment in a bar because of a romantic metaphor.
The reason is because deep down, even the scientists more often than not want to be known as the lone genius with special powers. That's the whole inspiration for many, even when they know they have to work in a team, they want to be the extra special lone genius among them. If you know many scientists, you know this is true.
In today's time that will be more true than ever thanks to ai and robotics. This new revolution in science reminds of a castaway and how they would recreate an island into a mechanical utopia for them
No. The reason is people are uncomfortable and envious that someone may prove "superior." I've personally known lone geniuses. They're socially hated, awkward, etc. They literally CAN'T collaborate most of the time, and their brutally ostracized because they can make some of the smartest people around feel (or look) utterly incompetent. But they aren't incompetent -- that's just a cognitive bias kicking-in to revaluate them once you compare them to those geniusez, who are not just one in a billion types but likely one in a century... for their given areas of interest.
Sometimes I feel hopeless, you know. Because no matter how hard I try to explain this to my folks, they don't seem to understand. Some agree with me though. But either the number of people is very few or they believe me by partly disbelieving me. Most of the people in my country believe that scientists are people who come up with ideas just out of blue and they didn't require anyone's help just as you mentioned. Some of the people believe this because others say to them like, "You're nothing" or "You don't have any talent" or "You're not capable of doing this or that" etc. To them it's like a coping mechanism that there only few people who are able to discover or achieve new things, they are born gifted, most of us can't and that's why we are bad at Mathematics or Physics or Biology etc. Sometimes even I join the cycle. In my country, people tend to think that, students who achieve higher academic grades are superior or God gifted. And others who don't get go grades are like nothing. I wish that if people could understand.
Thank you so much for sharing. I think a lot of people will be able to relate to your experiences. I hope this video helps you stay positive and remember that science (or any other job for that matter) really is for everyone, you don't have to be born special to succeed in the science.
The advancement in neurotech are amazing there's something called a neurophone it's use to help the mind become relaxed creative and even more in more intelligent as it taps into parts of cranium like an EEG. Embrace the right tech this is a liberated time to be alive people free from the slavery of labour free to truly be what God wants to be cocreators codevelopers codiscovers etc enjoy this zenith it don't get no better
Well, they are born gifted. That much is true. No amount of work is going to turn an average math or science student into a genius. You can get better certainly, but you won’t become a superstar. Even geniuses need to put in the effort, however.
@@drsammunroeEh…you still have to be born with a fair amount of aptitude to succeed. It’s the same as any other human endeavor. Success is typically the result of a combination of talent & hard work. When you tell people that they can be anything at all that they want to be you’re setting them up for failure just as much as you are if you presume that people who are naturally gifted don’t need to put in any work.
In Aristotelian storytelling; the scene of suffering is critical to the plot. Isolation is suffering. I doubt the narrative will ever change until a more common form of suffering is agreed upon. Stories, after all, are the easiest way to get a message to stick. In the end; we want people tinkering around, even if it is alone.
@@drsammunroe Genius does not exist. Genius is a label. Genius is not part of objective reality. Your video is mostly accurate. Lone people consider Genius had existed but they eventually need social help so their achievement can be known. Isaac Newton was a loner that eventually need the help of Edmund Halley. Srinivasa Ramanujan was a loner that eventually got the social help of the mathematicians at Oxford. People that have been consider Genius has come from all walks of life.
@@drsammunroe The only mathematician that I know of that never got any social help and end up in jail 3 times and die at the age of 20 in a duel with a bullet in his stomach was Evariste Galois. Evariste Galois research in mathematics was rejected by his contemporary mathematicians and he was kick out of college. 20 years after his death Joseph Liouville read Galois papers and explain it to them to the mathematical community. Evariste Galois papers were not understood when he was alive because he create a mathematical field that never existed, Abstract Algebra Group Theory.
@@drsammunroe The only scientist that I know of that never got any social help was Giordano Bruno. He was burn at the stake for heresy. He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own. He also insisted that the universe could be infinite and could have no "center". Hypatia of Alexandria got social help but her world was destroy by the Byzantine Empire.
So you're saying Einstein never had thought single experiment's? Darwin never traveled to island's by himself studying and drawing wildlife?? Or Fritz's Habor working all those long hours all by ????
Hi Kurt, thanks for the comment. I hope I wasn't misunderstood, because I wasn't saying that these amazing scientists didn't have incredible ideas or that working alone isn't helpful. The point I was trying to make is that in popular culture most people think that these scientists, or scientists in general, come up with ideas on their own without help from others, and that they come up with these ideas out of thin air without learning from the ideas that came before them. But this isn't how it works 99% of the time. We can still have great scientists and leaders, but even our greatest scientists collaborate, take advice, seek help, and build off of previous research. I hope that helps clarify things.
@@drsammunroe Which misses the point. Inheritance was known beyong and before Darwin -- even Mendelian genetics, as it turns out, go back as far as the ancient bear east in Mesopotamia (then getting forgotten). But nobody else put everything together to realize (the entirely new idea) that the ORIGINS of SPECIES could be explained through SELECTION upon traits communicated through inheritance... and that you could even model this without reference to (that is, not necessarily denying, though Darwin did consider, and was troubled by, the idea) God or gods. That was Darwin... alone. When it's "genius", it's typically characterized as... different, often entirely unacceptable socially. Most in history that are genius... aren't appreciated etc. Mendel (the guy who rediscovered genetics) actually spent 20 years collecting data on his peas and cultivation practices to mathematically derive the gene. Einstein is actually still being proven correct (even where he though he was wrong) on matter after matter long after his death, often in matters that are entirely unacceptable in society or science (e.g. recent in hints in emperical data of "superdeterminism", which begins explaining time of the glaring inconsistencies in the assumptions about the specific school of the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg sand quantum effects)...
This is the exact thing that I take issue with when it comes to problem solving in general, and why I loved the Apollo movie so much. Most times it takes multiple people talking to multiple people to come up with solutions, and the idea that only one person is capable, or able, perpetuates this belief that you have to go it alone to succeed. And for those who tend to do well, it gives them unfair expectations to meet, because people think they don't need help. All things you mention in this video, but it's something that is far reaching in multiple fields and multiple situations. I love how you broke it all down so well, I've struggled to explain this very thing in regards to fantasy/scifi/action stories where the "hero" has to "lose" all their help in order to succeed, when in fact that group of people helping them is what (I personally believe) makes them strive to do better, and gives them the tools they need to make it to the end. I'm a writer, and this is a trope I'm fighting against because I hate it so much! It's really heartening to hear about how this is very much not true in real life science! Thanks for the video!
I am so glad you liked it and thanks for engaging. I agree this is an issue in many areas, not just science. And you have touched on something here that I could have discussed more in the video, but the fact people think that they should work by themselves or don't need help can lead to a lot of loneliness. Thanks again for checking out my channel :)
I wonder if the Nobel Prize (in sciences) also contributes to the lone genius myth? It seems to me that the people who are awarded the prize are often maybe the head of the team that made the important discovery. They may not even have had the key insights or conducted the key experiments themselves.
Just discovered your channel and subbed, by the way. No way is this down to the UA-cam algorithm. 😉
Thanks so much for the comment and thanks for subscribing. Yes, the Nobel Prize is a tricky issue. On the one hand, it is important to acknowledge big achievements and discoveries, and it helps draw the public's attention to the importance of science. But the prize in science can only be awarded to a team of 3 people maximum, and nowadays teams are much bigger. It definitely contributes to a winner-takes-all mentality in science and makes it all about the individual. I would like them to change the rules to award the the science prize to groups, like they do with the Nobel Peace Prize, which can be awarded to organisations without a restriction on size.
I think the $1M price tag on the award probably necessitates them to limit the number of winners. You don't wanna shell out $23M for a whole team of people, even if they do cure cancer.
A similar thing plays out in art too. People think that being good at art is something innate or something that you’re born with, where as in reality it’s a lot of hard work. Similarly people think that artistic ideas come from nowhere, and originality is important, when in reality it’s a big collaborative effort, with people building on each others ideas over generations.
Very true, it isn't just science, but all areas of life where this idea appears. Thanks so much for the comment.
As people become more narcissistic and stop being team players what's your take on the fact many producers and rappers are using ai beats and ai lyric generators to make hits
Precisely, knowledge simply does not improve with solitude, but with sharing.
Temple Grandin: I can assure you the first stone sphere tip was not invented by any of you suicidal yakety-yaks.
It's not a myth. It's just also extremely rare. There are people of singular ability in certain areas. There is actually plenty of evidence to support it. What we don't have is an understanding of why.
At least we get to watch Elon Musk very publicly destroy the Lone Genius trope - hard for him to LARP as Tony Stark when he's running two companies into the ground
The myth is kinda weird. It would be like forgetting the team in basketball and just having Lebron running around alone dunking on everyone.
Thanks for the comment! It is true! I think we can still have talented individuals with incredible skills, we just need to remember it is rare that people work alone to get things done.
Well if the opposing team has the lack of talent I have in basketball, I assure you, Lebron would dance circles around me.
The lone genius is a sad reality in today's time as IQs drop and EQs drop as well man is going through social moral ethical economical degeneracy that is also issued out by the government and moral decay but there is hope alas thanks to ai and robotics man can literally be a one man band if he systematises his work strategises his work structures his work with a long short mid term vision on not just the work but how to eat from it and can also handle the loneliness which is what usually cripples and crumbles many. But the sad truth the universe and society is kinda forcing us to be lone guns because many of us are renegade pioneers and mavericks ahead of our times in spirit and in mind. As my grandpa used to say never have wait on a great idea act upon it now before it is too late.
@@flintwestwood3596 lol same
If we keep your analogy, can you name Grigori Perelman's team who helped him with Poincaré conjecture?
@11:57 I see no villainy here. Re Tony Stark: you called him a superhero; his super-power is super-genius. (We should not expect super-powers.) A "better" person should be held to higher standards, not lower ones. I suspect much of the real issue comes down to powerful individuals taking credit beyond their due. You know the light-bulb guy? He didn't invent the light-bulb at all, but he did a good job of inventing industrialized research and development. And then he took credit when one of his employees made it work satisfactorily.
this is not meant as a dig but do you honestly not like the idea that some people having more natural talents for certain field's? I am genuinely curious, love the continent you output just curious.
While you really do not have "Lone Genius" in fields that need a lot of experimental verification like f.ex. physic and biology there are many fields where at least the "Lone scientist" are often the case simply because so few are actively researching in a given field.
I thinks it’s just a culture of individualism, we reward collective effort to an individual. That’s why I really love this year Nobel peace prize. Especially chemistry ⚛️ the winner brought the whole team with who work on the discovery.. I think that was something special
Thanks for the comment! I would like them to change the rules to award the the science prizes to groups, like they do with the Nobel Peace Prize, which can be awarded to organisations.
@@drsammunroe I totally agreed 👍
When folks talk about individualism it makes me think of people on the fringe. Because if you think of how most innovations start they like diffusion of innovation in the sense a lone gun has an idea doesn't pan out gets ridiculed then with time things get funneled mainstream. I feel what is killing sciences/ivory towers if we honest like most science even the soft ones is the stagnation that comes from approval getting whether accolades or grants from paymasters. We need to go back to the days of inventors and dudes that patent shit they are truly creating and discovering shit plus they getting paid for their discovery no conformity true and real science not wanting approval. They really uplifting man because if we being honest most science is currently being used to control people for money power thus leading to creating predictable people that create a feedback loop that feeds into this loop. The individual shall reign again maybe not mainstream because people cannot handle that but it shall because as a society we need it the game is stagnating we need a renaissance badly
Don't make me call The Rick. Great video
it takes two whole scientists to come up with all the inventions on Agents of SHIELD. so of course they fall in love.
Subscribed and liked. I am a computer science student and to be honest working alone is tough. But you what is the weirdest part people who I know in computer science can't help me in solving my problems. Its through internet forums I get the most help from. I think it is maybe due to the fact that computer science is so vast that not many specializes in what you are working on.
Thanks so much for the support! I don't work in computer science, but I use a lot of R and other stats programs for data analysis, and I also find online forums really helpful for solving coding problems, although I am sure what you do is way more complex! Like you say, sometimes you have unique issues that someone a million miles away can help with. Thanks again for the comment :)
People seem to think history works like a game of Civilisation IV, where each culture develops up the same linear ladder going stone, bronze, iron, steel, writing, philosophy, war machines, etc.
It's a very damaging and perjorative narrative, especially to those people groups who just never had (or were just given) the opportunity to develop along the same paths as others at all, if you even consider it to be a 'path'.
Love your content btw! Thank you UA-cam Algorithm!
Thanks very much! Glad you enjoyed it!
Alan Turing worked a lot with Alonzo church (and other researchers), and they are both credited for inventing Lambda Calculus. Of course, the movie evacuated Church.
Empedocles had an early primitive idea about natural selection, as mentioned in Aristotle's Physics.
Thanks for the comment. I think the history of evolutionary thought is fascinating, perhaps one day I should do a video on it!
Really interesting concept. It also applies to pseudoscience. Climate deniers, the Discovery institute, and other pseudoscience organizations rely on this idea to make themselves appear more credible to a general audience.
A new channel with passionate and quality content, subbed!
Thank you so much for the positive feedback and support!
"Be alone-that is the secret of invention: be alone, that is when ideas are born." -Nikola Tesla.
However, 6:22-6:30 is the MOST important part of this video. Yes, very important, every math equation, programming language, quantum computing, mechanical repair, etc. was figured out by people in the past!!!!!! We are not self made people learning everything by ourselves, but the internet has made it possible to access this information and apply in our lives.
Introverts are not going to feel special anymore 🙊😂😂.
Preach! This mythos is the same reason we end up with democratically elected dictators, why income inequality is seen as a motivating good by many, and many more societal issues.
Glad you liked it! Thanks for the comment :)
But not the reason you end up with genius dictators who are actually effective in history, e.g. Alexander of Macedon.
I'm not sure I learned anything. This is a different kind of educational video.
I've always been annoyed with talent abuse by writers like this. Like ooo my character has SEVEN PHDS AND AN IQ OF 1000 OHH YEAH IT'LL BE SO BADASS. It's lazy and annoying.
Not sure why anyone would even want to get seven PhDs-By the time they were done with their final dissertation they’d be too old to do anything with any of ‘em! 😉
very true and no amount of intelligence will speed up the process haha@@grahamstrouse1165
Greatest story was Elon Musk and Wakanda (his fathers mines ).
good examples of collaboration depicted in movies, showing it can be done ✔
Thanks very much!
She missed the prodigies.
No..don’t think so.
When I was in my late teens, the BBC broadcast a series about JR . .. no not Ewing in Dallas but Oppenheimer. Starring Sam Waterston as the eponymous lead, this looked at the the life and politics of the leader of the Manhattan project. What this series did so well was to show the thousands of others involved in this project.
The Manhattan project team was huge. I doubt that there has ever been such concentration of genius gathered to solve a single problem in modern human history. One could make an argument for the ‘92 Olympic Dream Team, I suppose. 😁)
I always liked the saying that when you make something, you make the worst one. The Wright brothers made the worst airplane, then people built on, Flemming figured out mold to treat bacteria, but then people built on to it.
Not that it is important but personally my favorite scientist was always Marie Currie, she just always appealed to me, although her husband helping her was always something I knew (although I wish I could go back and be a fly on their walls). In high school I loved chemistry and wanted to be a chemist, but I figured I wasn't smart enough because my high school advance chem I hadn't come up with any amazing breakthroughs and clearly that meant I wasn't good enough for it. I wonder if I was subconsciously feeling that way because of the lone genius myth. Either way, I'm now in tech trying my best to let myself ask for help.
Absolutely love your videos!
In context of "scientists working together to solve a crisis in a movie", other example other than Apollo 13 is *Shin Godzilla* from 2016. I like how the protagonist of that movie are the open-minded/younger generation of the Japanese government instead of a lone hero or a lone genius scientist.
Thanks so much for the comment, and thanks for providing another example. I probably could have done a whole video of just clips from different movies!
When you have the genius's picture and a caption and that's the most you remember from your studies I think that creates a collective misunderstanding among ex-students hehe
Wait in that scene from beautiful mind i cannot see how that is a nash equilibrium, isn't a nash equilibrium one in which unilateral defection is worst for the defactor?, assuming the blonde is higher in a pay matrix then shouldnt defecting when everyone has chosen someone else? I guess if you put some sort of system of mind reading in place in which players assume that their choice of actiok is going to be others choice maybe, but still i dont get how that scene is depecting a nash equilibrium.
There's only ever been one lone genius IRL: Leonardo da Vinci. And he was only possible because of the era he grew up in.
My favourite scientific discovery is the work of Banting and Best around insulin. They were part of a team from the start.
Yeah as someone who's friends with a some extremely successful and talented Math Professors, I definitely agree. A lot of people who know them just think they come up with all their research and results by themselves, but they are constantly reading other research papers and messaging other math professors to advance their research and publish papers so quickly.
And then you run into that kid who solves everything from arithmetic and pre-algebra with "pretty shapes of numbers on the page and their patterns between them" (harmonies of numbers and series of infinities) in middle school, who is from a poor family, and never had any exposure to any of that material from elsewhere...
The anecdoting to disclaim "the myth" forgets that "the myth" became a stereotype... for a reason.. (I actually know that kid, by the way! His English grammar teacher, of all people, was the one who got curious and asked "first, why are you doing math in my class and... second, what ARE you doing!?"
@J. Bradley Bulsterbaum yeah
both those math professors were that kid in high school and college. But I'll let ya in on a secret. They eventually get to a certain level and have to read lots of math books and collaborate with other mathematics themselves to keep progressing. Granted they pickup the content of a math books/papers quicker than a lot of people would, but natural talent only goes so far before collaboration and honing are needed.
@@infinitelink I was most certainly the student in high school who was the "lone genius" that solved everything with no effort, came up with formulae on my own, and was teaching myself university level calculus in my free time. Now I'm a 4th year math major and I'm very much just another student, I work together with my peers and we both provide insights to eachother without one of us being some "supergenius" that doesn't need to put in any effort. Problems are hard, challenging, and rewarding, and most certainly not easy to any of us. An initial surprising talent doesn't stay as surprising as you move up, sometimes you just end up like all the other math majors, and that's okay and nothing to be afraid of. It's a very impressive feat to be able to understand this level of mathematics in and of itself, but by no means will someone like this remain some supergenius leagues ahead of all their peers forever. It only takes you so far before the material catches up with you.
For the record, I'm studying group representations primarily right now. A very rich subject, my favorite as of now.
I would get your beer after going to the bar. Bartenders hate it when you BYOB.
My favorite "lone genius was Michael Faraday.
Naval Architects have Archimedes. Like, "Eureka!"
Love the vid. I think you're awesome. Thank you for the awesome content. I'm sure I'll be binge watching your vids. I just subscribed ☺️
Thanks so much, I really appreciate the positive feedback and support :)
I call it "The Gauntlet Effect" after the 1985 game.
Basically a sword & sorcery team comprised of 4-5 characters, each with their own strengths and weaknesses use their combined efforts work together to win levels. Sci-fi/fantasy stories have relied on this model (even before "Gauntlet") for ages because it allows critical skills to be spread out among a recurring cast of 4-5 characters who save the day in varying combinations.
It's a dramatic formula designed to simplify stories and characters.
It's lazy but boy-howdy does it ever *work.*
One thing nobody seems to be considering is how difficult it is to tell a story--especially in film--with a dozen protagonists of varying screen time. It's much easier to pick the one scientist who had the most linear involvement and is the most familiar to the public. They also used "condensed characters" or "invented characters" (which I hate the most in biopics) to combine real people into a single character based on their pro-/antagonistic qualities. Also, getting the audience up to speed with the long, complicated immersion with dense scientific information that they aren't familiar with requires masterclass-level editing...much easier to have Alan Turing have a eureka moment in a bar because of a romantic metaphor.
When you have two hours of screen time you can only fit in so much…🙂
feels bad for making the number of like go from 222 to 223 but it had to be done !
they do exist. i am him.
I like your confidence. But year they really do exist.
Hello, my dear friend!
And it's not just science. This is a personal peeve of mine.
The reason is because deep down, even the scientists more often than not want to be known as the lone genius with special powers. That's the whole inspiration for many, even when they know they have to work in a team, they want to be the extra special lone genius among them. If you know many scientists, you know this is true.
In today's time that will be more true than ever thanks to ai and robotics. This new revolution in science reminds of a castaway and how they would recreate an island into a mechanical utopia for them
No. The reason is people are uncomfortable and envious that someone may prove "superior."
I've personally known lone geniuses. They're socially hated, awkward, etc. They literally CAN'T collaborate most of the time, and their brutally ostracized because they can make some of the smartest people around feel (or look) utterly incompetent.
But they aren't incompetent -- that's just a cognitive bias kicking-in to revaluate them once you compare them to those geniusez, who are not just one in a billion types but likely one in a century... for their given areas of interest.
@@infinitelink That is indeed true. Well said.
@@infinitelinkWhat is a genuis?
The only exception is Nikola Tesla.
Sometimes I feel hopeless, you know. Because no matter how hard I try to explain this to my folks, they don't seem to understand. Some agree with me though. But either the number of people is very few or they believe me by partly disbelieving me. Most of the people in my country believe that scientists are people who come up with ideas just out of blue and they didn't require anyone's help just as you mentioned. Some of the people believe this because others say to them like, "You're nothing" or "You don't have any talent" or "You're not capable of doing this or that" etc. To them it's like a coping mechanism that there only few people who are able to discover or achieve new things, they are born gifted, most of us can't and that's why we are bad at Mathematics or Physics or Biology etc. Sometimes even I join the cycle. In my country, people tend to think that, students who achieve higher academic grades are superior or God gifted. And others who don't get go grades are like nothing. I wish that if people could understand.
Thank you so much for sharing. I think a lot of people will be able to relate to your experiences. I hope this video helps you stay positive and remember that science (or any other job for that matter) really is for everyone, you don't have to be born special to succeed in the science.
@@drsammunroe Thank you very much.
The advancement in neurotech are amazing there's something called a neurophone it's use to help the mind become relaxed creative and even more in more intelligent as it taps into parts of cranium like an EEG. Embrace the right tech this is a liberated time to be alive people free from the slavery of labour free to truly be what God wants to be cocreators codevelopers codiscovers etc enjoy this zenith it don't get no better
Well, they are born gifted. That much is true. No amount of work is going to turn an average math or science student into a genius. You can get better certainly, but you won’t become a superstar. Even geniuses need to put in the effort, however.
@@drsammunroeEh…you still have to be born with a fair amount of aptitude to succeed. It’s the same as any other human endeavor. Success is typically the result of a combination of talent & hard work. When you tell people that they can be anything at all that they want to be you’re setting them up for failure just as much as you are if you presume that people who are naturally gifted don’t need to put in any work.
Working alone while learning from others really helps a lot. Personal result: "Discovered the origin of the universe theoretically".
The lone Genius is a visionary standing bold and alone single handedly changing the world despite all human opposition or ignorance.
So…bullshit, mostly.
In Aristotelian storytelling; the scene of suffering is critical to the plot. Isolation is suffering. I doubt the narrative will ever change until a more common form of suffering is agreed upon. Stories, after all, are the easiest way to get a message to stick. In the end; we want people tinkering around, even if it is alone.
John Von Neumann
This is awesome 💯
Thanks very much!
Um… Florey and Chain did get a Nobel. So..
Great vid! Just subbed
Awesome thank you!
In math and theoretical physics, the circumstances are a bit different.
i'm pretty sure today's mathematicians and physicists are building upon a few thousand years of other people's genius thoughts.
Good Video
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
@@drsammunroe Genius does not exist. Genius is a label. Genius is not part of objective reality. Your video is mostly accurate. Lone people consider Genius had existed but they eventually need social help so their achievement can be known. Isaac Newton was a loner that eventually need the help of Edmund Halley. Srinivasa Ramanujan was a loner that eventually got the social help of the mathematicians at Oxford. People that have been consider Genius has come from all walks of life.
@@drsammunroe The only mathematician that I know of that never got any social help and end up in jail 3 times and die at the age of 20 in a duel with a bullet in his stomach was Evariste Galois. Evariste Galois research in mathematics was rejected by his contemporary mathematicians and he was kick out of college. 20 years after his death Joseph Liouville read Galois papers and explain it to them to the mathematical community. Evariste Galois papers were not understood when he was alive because he create a mathematical field that never existed, Abstract Algebra Group Theory.
@@drsammunroe The only scientist that I know of that never got any social help was Giordano Bruno. He was burn at the stake for heresy. He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own. He also insisted that the universe could be infinite and could have no "center". Hypatia of Alexandria got social help but her world was destroy by the Byzantine Empire.
@@textbooksmathematicstutorials "social help so they're work can be known" doesn't = "genius does not exist"
Nikola tesla
Let’s grab a beer and chat science ❤
Haha yes let's do that ;)
So you're saying Einstein never had thought single experiment's? Darwin never traveled to island's by himself studying and drawing wildlife?? Or Fritz's Habor working all those long hours all by ????
Hi Kurt, thanks for the comment. I hope I wasn't misunderstood, because I wasn't saying that these amazing scientists didn't have incredible ideas or that working alone isn't helpful. The point I was trying to make is that in popular culture most people think that these scientists, or scientists in general, come up with ideas on their own without help from others, and that they come up with these ideas out of thin air without learning from the ideas that came before them. But this isn't how it works 99% of the time. We can still have great scientists and leaders, but even our greatest scientists collaborate, take advice, seek help, and build off of previous research. I hope that helps clarify things.
@@drsammunroe Which misses the point. Inheritance was known beyong and before Darwin -- even Mendelian genetics, as it turns out, go back as far as the ancient bear east in Mesopotamia (then getting forgotten).
But nobody else put everything together to realize (the entirely new idea) that the ORIGINS of SPECIES could be explained through SELECTION upon traits communicated through inheritance... and that you could even model this without reference to (that is, not necessarily denying, though Darwin did consider, and was troubled by, the idea) God or gods.
That was Darwin... alone. When it's "genius", it's typically characterized as... different, often entirely unacceptable socially. Most in history that are genius... aren't appreciated etc.
Mendel (the guy who rediscovered genetics) actually spent 20 years collecting data on his peas and cultivation practices to mathematically derive the gene.
Einstein is actually still being proven correct (even where he though he was wrong) on matter after matter long after his death, often in matters that are entirely unacceptable in society or science (e.g. recent in hints in emperical data of "superdeterminism", which begins explaining time of the glaring inconsistencies in the assumptions about the specific school of the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg sand quantum effects)...
This is the exact thing that I take issue with when it comes to problem solving in general, and why I loved the Apollo movie so much. Most times it takes multiple people talking to multiple people to come up with solutions, and the idea that only one person is capable, or able, perpetuates this belief that you have to go it alone to succeed. And for those who tend to do well, it gives them unfair expectations to meet, because people think they don't need help. All things you mention in this video, but it's something that is far reaching in multiple fields and multiple situations. I love how you broke it all down so well, I've struggled to explain this very thing in regards to fantasy/scifi/action stories where the "hero" has to "lose" all their help in order to succeed, when in fact that group of people helping them is what (I personally believe) makes them strive to do better, and gives them the tools they need to make it to the end. I'm a writer, and this is a trope I'm fighting against because I hate it so much! It's really heartening to hear about how this is very much not true in real life science! Thanks for the video!
I am so glad you liked it and thanks for engaging. I agree this is an issue in many areas, not just science. And you have touched on something here that I could have discussed more in the video, but the fact people think that they should work by themselves or don't need help can lead to a lot of loneliness. Thanks again for checking out my channel :)
'Dr' whatever, please get in your lane. Thank you...
This is the opposite error. The idea that the great man can't exist is inherently feminine and mediocrity satisfying.
Being first in science is super important.
false lol go look up the guy that wrote biographies on geniuses. he said they all had one thing in common. aloneness 😂 flat out false.
🙄🙄🙄