rare earths

[2dimes]

There is no way brilliant people are proportional to an increase in population.

Even if it were, the extra ones are not stepping up to produce innovations. The heard is trending toward the lowest common denominator. I hate you guys for tricking me into an actual conversation here.

[Metsfanmax]

There is no way brilliant people are proportional to an increase in population.

Clearly you did not watch Gattaca.

[2dimes]

Now we are getting somewhere.

Uma Thurman is attractive/ugly. And go!

[khazalid]

relatedly:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/2000-police-used-to-quell-pollution-protest-in-china-which-left-one-dead

2 dimes for your thoughts, 2dimes.

[2dimes]

relatedly:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/2000-police-used-to-quell-pollution-protest-in-china-which-left-one-dead

2 dimes for your thoughts, 2dimes.

They used 2000 cops to arrest 50 protesters? Dead guy, result of pollution, rubber bullets or "accidental" real bullet? I find Uma unattractive most of the time.

[2dimes]

Mildly annoyed about the Mongolian (mongoloid?) was just trying to raise delicious meat then gets hit by a truck while having his ranch dessertified.

[nietzsche]

This is fucking awesome.

We have 2dimes speaking seriously. Earlier I was abut to put a couple of arguments on the table that I really didn't believe in only to show how Mets arguments were reductionist. And now we have Mets speaking of creative processes as if he really know all about it.

I have researched the creative processes, always had it in my mind and I don't lose an opportunity to crosscheck facts the I have encountered about this topic. What is happening here is that Mets is extrapolating primordial soup ideas into creative process. Making it fit into his world view.

The exponential growth of inventions doesn't have to do with the number of people, it has to do with the availability of information made possible by geniuses like guttenberg and turing. To make it a simple game of probability is again utterly reductionist.

[waauw]

There is no way brilliant people are proportional to an increase in population.

Clearly you did not watch Gattaca.

Clearly you did not watch Idiocracy.

[waauw]

relatedly:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/2000-police-used-to-quell-pollution-protest-in-china-which-left-one-dead

2 dimes for your thoughts, 2dimes.

They used 2000 cops to arrest 50 protesters? Dead guy, result of pollution, rubber bullets or "accidental" real bullet? I find Uma unattractive most of the time.

For all you know, those are 50 Bruce Lee's they arrested... No scratch that. 50 Jet Li's. No way 2000 men is enough to take 50 Bruce Lee's.

[Metsfanmax]

I have researched the creative processes, always had it in my mind and I don't lose an opportunity to crosscheck facts the I have encountered about this topic.

I always love it when someone claims they are an expert on a topic, and then proceeds to make a claim that has zero citations to published work.

[nietzsche]

I have researched the creative processes, always had it in my mind and I don't lose an opportunity to crosscheck facts the I have encountered about this topic.

I always love it when someone claims they are an expert on a topic, and then proceeds to make a claim that has zero citations to published work.

I'm by no means an expert, but I've always been interested on that topic, and have read some about it. It doesn't leave my mind and everyday I see clues and test hypothesis, all mainly in my mind. You on the other hand seem to want to treat the topic from the outside without really knowing much. And I can tell because your thinking is too linear.


I'm not interested in writing an article or book on the subject, so I don't keep notes on citations. I take conclusions with me, or ideas, not words. My brain works that way, I rarely remember specifics.


---


This is our minds at work. They do what they do best, look for confirmation to our core beliefs. I can really tell where you're coming from because I was there once. I now find that way of seeing the world incomplete, at best. Whether you perceive it or not, it's not airtight. Maybe you do but it's hard to be wrong. Maybe you don't, but you will, eventually.

in the creative process though, there are clues to other views of how our worlds work. And those clues you won't find them in Nature ISBN 23413421. Creative people give the clues directly, a little bit here a little bit there. And most importantly in the similitudes among them of their way of thinking and acting.

[Metsfanmax]

I have researched the creative processes, always had it in my mind and I don't lose an opportunity to crosscheck facts the I have encountered about this topic.

I always love it when someone claims they are an expert on a topic, and then proceeds to make a claim that has zero citations to published work.

I'm by no means an expert, but I've always been interested on that topic, and have read some about it. It doesn't leave my mind and everyday I see clues and test hypothesis, all mainly in my mind. You on the other hand seem to want to treat the topic from the outside without really knowing much. And I can tell because your thinking is too linear.


I'm not interested in writing an article or book on the subject, so I don't keep notes on citations. I take conclusions with me, or ideas, not words. My brain works that way, I rarely remember specifics.


---


This is our minds at work. They do what they do best, look for confirmation to our core beliefs. I can really tell where you're coming from because I was there once. I now find that way of seeing the world incomplete, at best. Whether you perceive it or not, it's not airtight. Maybe you do but it's hard to be wrong. Maybe you don't, but you will, eventually.

in the creative process though, there are clues to other views of how our worlds work. And those clues you won't find them in Nature ISBN 23413421. Creative people give the clues directly, a little bit here a little bit there. And most importantly in the similitudes among them of their way of thinking and acting.

Two things.

First, this isn't an idea I made up for myself. I originally heard of the idea in the context of an explanation for why people like Paul Ehrlich were so wrong about a Malthusian-style societal collapse. As I understand it, some economists explain this in the framework I have proposed: even though there are many more people consuming many more resources, there's also a lot more innovation.

Second, it's just intuitive. It seems like the burden of the proof is on those arguing that if we have twice as many people, we don't double our chances of having another Einstein.

[Dukasaur]

Second, it's just intuitive. It seems like the burden of the proof is on those arguing that if we have twice as many people, we don't double our chances of having another Einstein.

I don't think we have any trouble having another Einstein. I'm sure we've had thousands of Einsteins. It's just that we only need one; the others are redundant.

We have this emotional need to celebrate someone as the "originator" but it rarely works like that. Usually there are dozens or possibly thousands of people working along the same lines, all capable of finding the answer, and it's pretty much a lottery draw which one finishes first.

Hundreds of engineers were independently working on how to make steel more efficiently, mostly along one of three basic ideas. Bessemer just happened to not only have great success with his system but also had the business connections to be able to upscale it right away. Today we call it the Bessemer converter, but if Bessemer had contracted tuberculosis and died in childhood, somebody else would have had the same success. Maybe there would have been a delay of a few weeks because alternate-reality Bessemer was a little slower than the main-reality version, but it would have made little difference in history overall. Once the economy demonstrates a need for something, someone will find a way to fill it.

Pure science is a little slower than applied science, because there's no immediate need for the new ideas, so there's no big pressure to complete the work. Nonetheless, the principles are the same, they just work a little slower. Genetic manipulation went from theory to practise in five years because there was immediate commercial application for the theory. Quantum physics took a little longer, because until we started pushing the boundaries of how small and how fast an electronic switch can be, nobody really needed to know the exact position of an electron, it was just idle curiosity. Still, sooner or later the discoveries would have been made.

People idly thought about computers for centuries. It's amazing how fast, once the competitive pressure of WWII was upon us, they became reality.

People speak awestruck about DaVinci foreseeing the helicopter, but it's no great feat to me. I'm sure that since Archimedes there were a thousand or a million people who happened to think about the fact that Archimedes' screw could propel gasses as well as liquids, and could be used to lift a load off the ground. Until the 20th century there weren't high powered compact engines that could do it, so most of those dreamers went on to more practical pursuits, but if the circumstances had existed, any of them could have done it.

[nietzsche]

I have researched the creative processes, always had it in my mind and I don't lose an opportunity to crosscheck facts the I have encountered about this topic.

I always love it when someone claims they are an expert on a topic, and then proceeds to make a claim that has zero citations to published work.

I'm by no means an expert, but I've always been interested on that topic, and have read some about it. It doesn't leave my mind and everyday I see clues and test hypothesis, all mainly in my mind. You on the other hand seem to want to treat the topic from the outside without really knowing much. And I can tell because your thinking is too linear.


I'm not interested in writing an article or book on the subject, so I don't keep notes on citations. I take conclusions with me, or ideas, not words. My brain works that way, I rarely remember specifics.


---


This is our minds at work. They do what they do best, look for confirmation to our core beliefs. I can really tell where you're coming from because I was there once. I now find that way of seeing the world incomplete, at best. Whether you perceive it or not, it's not airtight. Maybe you do but it's hard to be wrong. Maybe you don't, but you will, eventually.

in the creative process though, there are clues to other views of how our worlds work. And those clues you won't find them in Nature ISBN 23413421. Creative people give the clues directly, a little bit here a little bit there. And most importantly in the similitudes among them of their way of thinking and acting.

Two things.

First, this isn't an idea I made up for myself. I originally heard of the idea in the context of an explanation for why people like Paul Ehrlich were so wrong about a Malthusian-style societal collapse. As I understand it, some economists explain this in the framework I have proposed: even though there are many more people consuming many more resources, there's also a lot more innovation.

Second, it's just intuitive. It seems like the burden of the proof is on those arguing that if we have twice as many people, we don't double our chances of having another Einstein.

So you're trusting economists to tell you about creativity? Those dudes are as right as the climate girl.

Second point is understandable, however, I wouldn't want another 7 billion people to double our chances of having another iPod. But as Dukasaur points out, it's not exactly like that. This a very interesting idea to ponder, because you have to leave your conclusions open in many regards and try to play with posibilities in your mind.

For instance, there must be the need. And this need is then taken personally. So if the need is prevalent in more people, it's more likely that more people will be trying to solve it, therefore making it most likely that people with the right idea from the outside would have a chance to work on it. But more people could also mean that such need is not the greatest, or that possibilities are scarce or whatever.

Take for instance the renaissance. A small period of time in a small place gives birth to a lot of creativity. It has to do with the right circumstances at the right moment and the right people would take care of it.

Your idea is straighforward, but it's too reductionist. If you tell me now that it comes from an economist speaking of inventions I understand why.

[nietzsche]

Second, it's just intuitive. It seems like the burden of the proof is on those arguing that if we have twice as many people, we don't double our chances of having another Einstein.

I don't think we have any trouble having another Einstein. I'm sure we've had thousands of Einsteins. It's just that we only need one; the others are redundant.

We have this emotional need to celebrate someone as the "originator" but it rarely works like that. Usually there are dozens or possibly thousands of people working along the same lines, all capable of finding the answer, and it's pretty much a lottery draw which one finishes first.

Hundreds of engineers were independently working on how to make steel more efficiently, mostly along one of three basic ideas. Bessemer just happened to not only have great success with his system but also had the business connections to be able to upscale it right away. Today we call it the Bessemer converter, but if Bessemer had contracted tuberculosis and died in childhood, somebody else would have had the same success. Maybe there would have been a delay of a few weeks because alternate-reality Bessemer was a little slower than the main-reality version, but it would have made little difference in history overall. Once the economy demonstrates a need for something, someone will find a way to fill it.

Pure science is a little slower than applied science, because there's no immediate need for the new ideas, so there's no big pressure to complete the work. Nonetheless, the principles are the same, they just work a little slower. Genetic manipulation went from theory to practise in five years because there was immediate commercial application for the theory. Quantum physics took a little longer, because until we started pushing the boundaries of how small and how fast an electronic switch can be, nobody really needed to know the exact position of an electron, it was just idle curiosity. Still, sooner or later the discoveries would have been made.

People idly thought about computers for centuries. It's amazing how fast, once the competitive pressure of WWII was upon us, they became reality.

People speak awestruck about DaVinci foreseeing the helicopter, but it's no great feat to me. I'm sure that since Archimedes there were a thousand or a million people who happened to think about the fact that Archimedes' screw could propel gasses as well as liquids, and could be used to lift a load off the ground. Until the 20th century there weren't high powered compact engines that could do it, so most of those dreamers went on to more practical pursuits, but if the circumstances had existed, any of them could have done it.

There's a very interesting phenomenom, I don't recall how it's called, but it's about how in other times, when there was no tv or internet or radio, or other forms of being in contact with other people like we have today (there were papers and books and mail i guess, and probably other ways for scholars) once a person had discovered something or inveted something, even if he didn't publish it, different people in different parts of the world, would start to think of that same solution or discovered the same.

I read about this some years ago but I don't remember where. It had examples and theories and all, but it was not a book exactly about that.