There are only two super geniuses of science that I am aware of

signalfire

mikegrouchy


And I am calling for Super Genius.

I'm not vilifying men; I'm complaining that their seeming lack of ability to channel their testosterone into forces for good and not war has been a bit of a problem, historically speaking.

When's the last time you saw women glorifying war? Invading another country? Producing WMDs or considering using them on whole masses of people? Justifying producing weapons for profit? Even one of the people I most admire, Oppenheimer, seemed surprised that his elegant invention ended up being used to kill hundreds of thousands of people, even though that was explicit from the git-go.

Why is it that peaceful men are often ridiculed, and warlike men are honored?

Where one person sees lack of ability,
another may see opportunity and unmet
potential. If peaceful men were the
most popular date choice, the world
would see more of them.

Men should learn to recognize this in
themselves and express their desire
for full partners who love method and
research as much as they do.

Mike

signalfire[/I]
When's the last time you saw women glorifying war? Invading another country? Producing WMDs or considering using them on whole masses of people? Justifying producing weapons for profit? Even one of the people I most admire, Oppenheimer, seemed surprised that his elegant invention ended up being used to kill hundreds of thousands of people, even though that was explicit from the git-go.

edit on 7-10-2013 by Broom because: (no reason given)

intrptr
Has anyone mentioned this guy yet?

Galileo

Galileo took his Daughter with him to Venice, but left his wife.

Her name was Maria.
She wrote him 120 letters after she joined a Convent.

I believe she was the love of his life.

Moreover, I beg you to be so kind as to send me that book of yours which has just been published, so that I may read it, for I have a great desire to see it.

From San Matteo, the 21st of November 1623

Your most affectionate daughter

Sister Maria Celeste Galilei

Rice.edu / Galileo / Maria

And she was very interested in his work.

Mike

Besides,
In my studies of Coperncicus, Galileo, and Kepler,
I find Kepler to be the greater. The Genius of
the group. The others being very talented indeed,
but not quite Genius.

It may be heresy to say it (if there are any
astronomers reading this) but I find even Newton
pales in comparison to Kepler. Newton doing a
fair job of explaining Kepler to people, in terms
that have set the standard, but mere interpretation
none the less.

Even relativity respects Keplers' equal areas law.

Mike

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0500b01af88d.jpg[/atsimg]
Some quotes from random-online-book-store Customer Reviews

Thomas Kuhn performed a signal service for historiography of science by studying how new ideas and new ways of thinking displace the old. He invented the term 'paradigm shift' to describe what happens when 'normal science' runs into 'anomalies' and enters a 'crisis', which in turn leads to a 'scientific revolution'. Nobody had heard of such things before, so Kuhn had a scoop. He sketched some historical examples in iconoclastic style; the result is this short book, first published forty years ago and still wowing Cultural Studies students today.

Before Kuhn, we were taught in school that scientific progress was linear, that it was an unending progression of refinements and developments, with one "truth" leading to the next "truth." Kuhn's insights including pointing out that such a linear progression was mostly a lie. His thesis was that the major developments in science were mostly revolutionary. That some "truths" turned out to be false. Astronomy was revolutionized by Galielo and Copernicus, and man was divested from the center of the universe. Physics was revolutionized by Newton. Biology and Darwin. It didn't hurt that plate tectonics came along shortly after Kuhn published, and Kuhn looked like his model was predictive, too.

My favorite aspect of this book is how Kuhn describes people's blind resistance to new ideas and technology, even if it is something that will ultimately benefit mankind. In a moment of dark truth, Kuhn states that in many cases it is not a matter of convincing those who already established, but rather convincing the next generation and simply waiting for the current one to die off. It's both a guide to understanding how to really effect change in a world of stubborn thought, as well as a detailed history of innovations and the process required to make them mainstream. In its scathing criticism of the scientific establishment, it unveils how much further we could be if we did in fact adopt a linear structure for improving technology.

This book
has made me
more open minded.
What more can I say.


Mike

mikegrouchy
“Three things only do slaves require: work, food, and their religion.”

6th column
- Robert Heinlein




The modern revisionism that created the battle of the sexes,
is not science. It's not even poor science. It is destructive
to science.

Mike

that is an interesting video. While I agree with her basis again and again, she takes it to a point where she becomes wrong.

First of all... Men covet that role. Not only do they covet it, but they will attempt to make a woman who does not constantly recognize that role feel like crap for not being able to do enough, to sacrifice enough, to be tough enough... to even consider that they could ever make it on their own. While this woman has a reasonable premise, when she repeats things like "come last every time" and "women always come first"... it becomes obvious that she has not been in the position of constant dominion under a man. Or multiple men...after trying to find one who does not constantly rub it in the woman's face and thinking that it's going to be different next time and only encountering angry man after angry man who WILL NOT LET the women they are close to persevere, for fear that they will no longer be needed as men.

So yes... she is looking straight at the problem here... I agree, but for the majority of woman, not settling for a man who is the primary cause of this behavior reinforcement...will most often lead any such woman to be alone for quite some time... and with so many in the lower classes, this society is not constructed for the lower classes to survive alone. Having your face rubbed into abusive male chauvinism will give you a choice of walking away and trying to continue encouraging yourself you can make it on your own (which in my opinion is the most reasonable choice even though most will not make it successfully but without pregnancies their burdens will be lighter) or staying with him long enough to find some success although many will not allow it....or to stay with him and suck up the EVERY DAY ABUSE and let the pay backs be allowing him to do everything and be the one to suffer the deep waters even though ship wrecks are nowhere near as common as bad marriages that we are programmed with by tradition so it's kind of silly she would keep repeating life boats and maybe she just needs to stop watching DiCaprio on titanic.

With all the men who walk out on their marriages and children... with all the single mothers... how dare she suggest they do not suffer and always come first.

She lost me when she tried to make the claim that woman do not suffer because of this role, because in many ways... some die a little every damn day. Many have just been programmed to feel that their lives center solely around their husbands. I made the decisions that I have made about men I have known who become unreasonable, jealous, controlling and domineering because I think death would be a better alternative to living that lie.

She lost me there...and really can't make the case unless she has lived enough of her life in that circumstance... even repeatedly to see the definite pattern.

Are all this way? Of course not... but for many different reasons, many are.

yes, we don't need these roles and I think they are disgusting on both sides. Expecting men to do all even if it means die is doing nothing but contributing to the insanity and has to stop!... but a HUGE part of what is going to change it... IS WHEN THEY STOP COVETING THE ROLE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I could devote my entire life to a man and even concede where his deeds were more important than my own, attempting to do what I am able to do to contribute instead of just being the wife who is handed everything and being thought of as a worthless showpiece, but NEVER for a man who tries to instill that type over me and I have MANY examples of exactly that... all the while taking every contribution I have ever given them... from money, to the use of cars, to places to live... all for them to then turn and try to suppress any empowerment because of their fear and insecurities. For Christ sake I had a gun pulled on me by a mechanic who i was trying to pay for fixing my car after he first attempted to take his payment with sex (telling me he knew I didn't want a relationship and "just do me") and refusing his heavy physically controlling advances and running out of his house screaming and crying... He apologized on the phone and I thought I should pay him for the service and then never speak to him again so he wouldn't sue me and that is when he pulled a gun on me trying to SCARE the sex out of me. I wasn't even dating that guy and he was BEGGING to be used. He was begging to throw his money, time and effort to the opposite sex! I have NUMEROUS such examples. I could literally write a book. that guy didn't even seem like a chauvinist. He was a professional mechanic and lived in a brick house on a nice lake. Most of the real chauvinist in behavior are also desperate and/or insecure about their current relationship.

SHE DOESN'T WALK IN EVERYONE'S SHOES.

Some women just do not know how men can be. they have not experienced enough first hand abuse.
She has to realize that some people are just damn angry, but to shut the mouths of angry women means shutting the mouths of angry men in fair play...and that just makes their problems worse. they NEED to be able to express themselves in sensible and analytical ways instead of keeping it all inside... but fems have to shut up? No.

If she can give her opinion, so can everyone else and what really needs to happen is we need to find REAL, TANGIBLE ways to break out of these roles.

there are plenty of examples in history of women standing up and taking a proactive, dependent role... How dare she?!!

i wish she hadn't taken that so far... she could have made a reasonable point if she had left short of the complete ignorance of the importance of condemning chauvinism as a broken mechanism of an age that needs to pass. Feminism is not expecting these men to keep doing these things and keep putting themselves in these positions... it's encouraging both to release some of their traditional roles. that is OPPOSITE to feminism. The woman and children first thing is usually enforced by men as they see themselves as stronger and more capable of surviving and/or rescuing the rest. In many cases they may be right but i also know that women have shown many examples of stepping up and putting themselves in harms way. SHE'S CRAZY if she thinks women always just sit back and watch the men die. We insisted upon entering the military! We insisted upon male roles! It's like she's just spouting her opinion from a narrow view after obsessing on one thing and it's a shame... because she was right when she said men should not be seen as disposable. She was right when she inferred we should not expect men to only fill these roles... but you tell that to most men. If they don't down right refuse, they will make it difficult and dare you try while trying to trip you up every step of the way and if you fall, they will just scoff at you.

Any kind of usury is sick.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Good stuff. Will have to look the book up.

Broom
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

Good stuff. Will have to look the book up.

I consider it the most important book
published in the last 469 years.

Mike

NotAnAspie

yes, we don't need these roles and I think they are disgusting on both sides. Expecting men to do all even if it means die is doing nothing but contributing to the insanity and has to stop!... but a HUGE part of what is going to change it... IS WHEN THEY STOP COVETING THE ROLE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Well she does say in the first minute
that it started because a woman online
came into a "male safe space" for abused
husbands and men, and started of by openly
trolling the guys saying they were wimps and
should man up and get over it.

But your assessment of the video is fair.

There are so many tangled issues.

My feeling is that neither person should
dedicate themselves to the other, but
rather they should come together for
the mutual research.

We are the generation that can shed the
traditional gender roles. We can work
together, we can do science. Together.

And from all my studies of the history
of science, I think this may lead to the
first real golden age in the history of
the Earth.

Research Partners who are in love.

Mike

mikegrouchy

NotAnAspie

yes, we don't need these roles and I think they are disgusting on both sides. Expecting men to do all even if it means die is doing nothing but contributing to the insanity and has to stop!... but a HUGE part of what is going to change it... IS WHEN THEY STOP COVETING THE ROLE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Well she does say in the first minute
that it started because a woman online
came into a "male safe space" for abused
husbands and men, and started of by openly
trolling the guys saying they were wimps and
should man up and get over it.

But your assessment of the video is fair.

There are so many tangled issues.

My feeling is that neither person should
dedicate themselves to the other, but
rather they should come together for
the mutual research.

We are the generation that can shed the
traditional gender roles. We can work
together, we can do science. Together.

And from all my studies of the history
of science, I think this may lead to the
first real golden age in the history of
the Earth.

Research Partners who are in love.

Mike

edit on 7-10-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

who knows... maybe there is a little magic when a man and a woman can work together with such closeness. A double sided dynamic that breaks boundaries.

I have to admit though, that the more persecuting side of me tends to think that the troll was really a man.

j-u-s-t k-i-d-d-i-n-g

Ah yes, I've come accross that transactional analysis before but it wasn't exactly what I meant by power dynamics. Beyond any conversationl annoyances, I think there is a tendency for those in power to, at the very least, overlook the contributions of their "inferiors". At worst, what with the naturally corrupting effect that power can have, they can actively seek to diminish the perceived contributions of those beneath them. I would argue that this primal instinct to wield power over others trancends any divisions in social status. Indeed this instinct likely gave rise to our respect for distinctions in class, gender, race ect as this gives those with power a formal and socially acceptable (or not) system for seperating themselves from their inferiors.

Well I can't predict the future but I'd wager there is already some interesting reading material on that front already, perhaps not condensed to a single book though. I imagine the difficulty would be in quantifying and measuring love. It seems intuitively obvious that any project involving lovers would have the potential to benefit from the connection, but also that the sometime erratic nature of such a powerful force could potentially cause problems.

Thanks for the kind words, I've enjoyed reading the other posts, some very interesting ideas!

Some cool things have been added about feminist thing. As I see it, feminisms achievable goals were/are to change institutional rules/laws so that the same applied to men and women, such as access to the Military, voting ect. After that, much like Kuhns book states of revolutionary scientific idea, the social acceptability of sexist ideas should die with those who hold those view. I don't think it's quite as simple as that though because in societies where poverty is rife and education is poor, this sort of prejudicial BS won't just die out in one or two generations. Another side of the problem, as I see it, is that many women.. hmm.. it's as if they don't beleive in their own equality, or perhaps it's a bit foggy as to what that actually means. Portrayals of women in media/advertising surely plays a large role in this, as well as the cross gender worship of idiocy and ignorance. Of course, men and their worship of power can still have a detrimental effect womens equality, NotanAspie covered that quite succinctly though so I'll leave it there.

Mikegrouchy, do you have any more detailed thoughts on the whole Loversas scientists thing? Seems like you have something up your sleeve and I'm grasping at straws a bit on that front

reply to post by mikegrouchy


i didnt read the entire thread, but from what i read Einstein married his first cousin, is this true?

March of the Fire Ants

Mikegrouchy, do you have any more detailed thoughts on the whole Loversas scientists thing? Seems like you have something up your sleeve and I'm grasping at straws a bit on that front

edit on 7-10-2013 by March of the Fire Ants because: (no reason given)

Our story starts with Sophie Marie De Condorcet.
Married to the Philosopher Marquis De Condorcet,
together they changed the world. They advocated
a liberal economy, free and equal public education,
constitutionalism, and equal rights for women and
people of all races.

She produced two very influential translations of
Thomas Paine and Adam Smith, and He invented
the field of Political Science with the "Condorcet
method" which selects the candidate, through
voting tallies, who would beat each of the other
candidates in a run-off election.

The results of their collaboration were two tiny
things the reader may have heard of in history
class.

The French Revolution
The Feminist Movement

This is not the modern radical version of Feminism.
Sophie Marie De Condorcet is considered to be
the first Feminist. For some strange reason
her book "The Letters of Sympathy" is still very
hard to find in English. It covers feminist
ethics, and ethical behavior.

She ran a Salon in Paris where she was famous
for her kind heart, beauty, and indifference to
a person's class or social origins. Located in the
old Royal Mint directly Across the Street from
the Royal Palace (the modern Louvre) the place
was full of revolutionaries, philosophers, and
thinkers.

Unfortunately international bankers hijacked
the revolution with the reign of terror, as they
feel they know what is best for us and the
world. He husband was beheaded by that
liberal movement symbolized by the topless
tart called Liberty.

Our story moves on to Lavosier and his Wife.


After Napoleon returned from Egypt with all the
wonderful drawings and engravings made by
actual architects, engineers, and scientists, the
two noticed something in the Egyptian wall
drawings.



That the ancient Egyptians seemed to know
something of smell and that maybe this was
the science lost with the burning of the library
of Alexandria.

In those days Alchemy was a muddled mess
that proposed theories like phlogiston and
described reactions in symbolic allegory.

The Lavosier's found they couldn't even
begin to talk about vapors without confusion
breaking out in each of the different camps
of alchemists.

When they were done, there is a standard
language of chemistry, a person can explain
why oxygen is part of the reaction when
burning wood, and reproduceable results
are possible, even standardized measure.

France went on to become the worlds leader
in fragrance research.

Unfortunately Lavosier himself had his
genius cut short by the Liberal movement
symbolized by the topless Tart and backed
by international bankers, when he was
beheaded during the Reign of Terror.

There was an article about Einstein's brain, that passed by me today.

The left and right hemispheres of Albert Einstein's brain were unusually well connected to each other and may have contributed to his brilliance, according to a new study conducted in part by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk.

Source :

The interaction between the 2 hemispheres, separates man from woman as well.

You could argue, that Einstein, got the best sides of both sexes. The better communication, between the 2 brains from a female half, and the logical, better focus from the male half.

Interesting article.

It says that they were able to compare the number of connections
in his brain to other brains from the same time period, and of
similar age groups the elderly Einstein.

Mike

I wonder if people who are able to engage in loving relationships
develop more connections in the hemispheres, or if the connections
come first, and the relationships are a symptom.

Mike

No such thing as 'super geniuses', and saying one man or women is smarter than the other is impossible to quantify.Impossible.

Its just luck and circumstance that people like Einstein always head these lists. He is obviously one of the smartest, but no one can claim to be THE smartest. There is probaly some kid in Deli who is cleverer.

reply to post by doorhandle


Einstein never claimed to be a genius.. The credit goes to the scientific world, I guess.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


If you note from your posted image that two words are bolded--Einstein and wife. What that indicates is that your search results were using the terms "einstein" and "wife" and basically loading the search return for that specific subject. A simple search of Einstein does not bring up any of the specific sites that your image listed. In fact, I'm page 4 of scanning through the results and I still have seen no mention or allegation about Einstein stealing wife's work.

It's called cherry picking/confirmation bias and it's a fallacy.