Why aren't there more geniuses nowadays making scientific breakthroughs?

Why aren't there more geniuses nowadays making scientific breakthroughs? Is it because they're all employed at Meta and Google creating slop for humanity?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Calculus is not that hard. Post a better genius.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i don't think it disproves anything since you have just created 2 numbers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no it's not that hard if you got all the rules laid out for you
      try creating everything from scratch, midwit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn’t even have that many applications. Most engineers don’t need to find the area under a function.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Newton didn't create it from scratch tough. His teacher Isaac Barrow published a proof of the Fundamental theorem of Calculus before Newton ever started to work on this.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh man, usually I can ignore the trolls bit you just fricking pissed me off. Read a book about him (in case you're not trolling) and I can assure you, you will love everything about this incel genius

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      moron take. Because you learn things after it's laid out for normies and standarized for academia indoctrination.
      things when comes out for the first time is so fricking hard and even geniuses will not be capable to grasp it only after futher simplification.
      Coming up with something revolutionary like Newton is almost impossible and only done by very few people historically

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m going to take a dump on your head.

    -farts-
    -poops on your head-

    As for an answer, because I like the question; the world is not allowed to significantly change from its balance of conflict and tranquility. Western nations were once on the precipice of bringing about a metaphorical yet true divine harmony to everyone if they could just have a bit more time (in terms of centuries) to develop it. If the West continued to technologically and scientifically advance any more in total homogeny, the entire world would feel its effects through secondary and tertiary interlinked relation. Literally, our entire world, our way of thinking, everyday life would stop involving these amounts of suffering and torment. Rape would go down, torture and thievery and corruption and murder all would go down, people would start to truly change as the generational effects could be felt to be relieved, instead of laboring. Coveting and sadism and selfishness all would go down. Life would become introspective, and at the very least, spiritually laborious. That is not allowed to happen, and I believe that’s due to various exter-physical and energetic hypothesis. It can’t happen or everything breaks.

    So the West will degenerate, dissolve, crumble, and suffering will replace the previously built good triumph, and the world will remain plateaued, and this is why geniuses do not have as much impact as they once did, otherwise they would shift the metaphysical significantly to the point of breaking what is demanded. It’s “schizo” in the sense that you reflect and quickly mock, but if the world wasn’t meant to also have immense suffering, we would be on track to utopian societies by now. It is also likely we’ve been reset for various reasons. But for the record, you do have the power to alter this world, this reality. It is not in their total control, it’s almost childish how silly the reactions are, pitiful even.

    God bless.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you should read more books instead of whatever garbage you post on IQfy. It will be a better use of time for everyone involved, including yourself

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        -farts-
        -poops all over your face-

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>>/x/

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    people are too busy chasing money and dealing with patents

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, is because there are far too many joggers and small hats, and too few humans.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I never understood path integrals. Dumb shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To evaluate the integral ∫[from -∞ to ∞] cos(x)/(x^2 + 1)^2 dx, we can use the residue theorem from complex analysis. Let's denote the integrand as f(z) = cos(z)/(z^2 + 1)^2, and consider the contour integral ∮ f(z) dz around a semicircular contour in the upper half-plane with radius R, denoted as C_R.

      By the residue theorem, the contour integral is equal to 2πi times the sum of residues of f(z) at its poles inside the contour. The poles of f(z) occur at z = i and z = -i, each with multiplicity 2.

      We need to find the residues of f(z) at these poles. The residue of f(z) at a pole of order 2 at z = a is given by Res(f(z), a) = lim[za] d/dz[(z - a)^2 * f(z)].

      For z = i, the residue is Res(f(z), i) = lim[zi] d/dz[(z - i)^2 * cos(z)/(z^2 + 1)^2].

      Similarly, for z = -i, the residue is Res(f(z), -i) = lim[z-i] d/dz[(z + i)^2 * cos(z)/(z^2 + 1)^2].

      After finding the residues, we can evaluate the integral using the residue theorem and take the limit as R approaches infinity.

      Ok im too stupid to even understand it when it's spoon-fed to me by GPT 3.5

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Prove the contribution from gamma vanishes

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You mean the semicircle? Jordan's lemma.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Shit like this is why eugenics must be imposed right now, you imbecile moron.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >best minds are at meta and google
    Abysmal attempt at misdirection, idiot "special agent". Tell your SAC to re-assign you and to assign genuinely intelligent, experienced people to surveil 4chins.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Stagnation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cool link, thank you

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, ad-tech, which is what those companies essential are, has absorbed a good percentage of the most brilliant minds. Fintech has also taken a large chunk of them to create increasing exotic and obtuse financial instruments.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People need things, advertising tell them what thing to need, a brilliant enough mind will use that to prevent gangstalking

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If they need it to begin with, you wouldn't have to advertise it to them to tell them they needed it since they already would have need for it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >People don't know what they want.
          >Steve Jobs
          Are you smarter than Steve Jobs (other than that whole cure cancer by eating fruit salad thing)?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >People don't know what they want.
            >If I shift the goalposts from needs to wants, nobody will notice.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You just defined the behavioral heart of Supply Side Economics.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Math is indecipherable
    Physics is indecipherable
    Everything else requires a $10million+ lab

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >if he had never lived nobody would miss him
    wow, you're just like him

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If he was a moronic piece of shit.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The most popular boards is /vg/.
    GG humanity

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Many are caught by psychiatry, and forcefully exposed to neurotoxins.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Google "80% of students admit to cheating in college", that is the reason why. A supermajority of phds cheat, the leftover 20% that are doing everything right are unfairly compared to those idiots who rely on rote memorization and hypersocialization to get ahead.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >rely on rote memorization and hypersocialization
      Imagine not integrating these skills into the "non-idiot" yourself and then blaming others for being idiots that suppress you

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're making socialites, not breakthrough geniuses. No such thing as low hanging fruit, just dumber people working at a much slower rate that lack the ability to solve critical research problems that ppl could solve in the 50s due to overall higher iq that's correlated with the cheating rate.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In terms of IQ there are many similar cases today. In terms of domain knowledge and IQ, there are still many. In terms of IQ, domain knowledge, celibacy, independent wealth and leisure time, low-hanging fruit and immediately applicable scientific pursuits Newton is an extreme outlier historically.

    We could clone him and train his clones on an identical simulation of his life but you wouldn't think they were 'genius', just weird.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    when the fruit tree is picked most would rather count beans at the bean factory

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Edward Dutton's explanation:

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why aren't there more geniuses nowadays making scientific breakthroughs?
    https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Stagnation#People

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    many breakthroughs in the past were low hanging fruits which there are none left of now

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how can we possibly know that there are none left? we don't know what we don't know, i.e. we have no knowledge of how much unknown knowledge is left. one day someone is going to wake up and have a eureka moment and come up with some new world changing shit, and 100 years after that point during another regressive cultural period when nothing groundbreaking is being discovered, someone like you is going to call all discovered knowledge "low hanging fruit"

      in truth, the real problem today is that everyone, including governments, want to monetize their discoveries and use them to gain wealth and power, so new ones are kept under lock and key and never shared with the world and made public for all to scrutinize and build off of.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you didnt say anything profound or insightful
        >new ones are kept under lock and key and never shared with the world and made public for all to scrutinize and build off of.
        what percent of them do you suppose are kept guarded?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what percent of them do you suppose are kept guarded?
          whatever percent might lead to a nation or corporation gaining any amount of power or advantage over its competitors.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            im going to calculate this from indirect signs then keep it under guard because youre not a worthy chat partner.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what percent of them do you suppose are kept guarded?
          Nothing that could also be used as an accessible weapon of mass destruction would ever be released to the public, and anything that might be even remotely profitable will be tied up in IP and patent laws forever, which severely limits any meaningful discovery from being shared at this stage in our civilizational development.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            One clear example are plasma batteries. Any scientist who works in that technology will get killed by the CIA because it allows to build a torpedo that can destroy a US carrier.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            tell me about that phase conjugation laser shit that keeps popping up on this board

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go back to flipping burgers, you moron.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            sheesh give me a link for these plasma batteries then. It seems to be a vague description and my first 5 articles were AI/thinly veiled ads to businesses

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Information pertaining to the design and manufacture of nuclear weapons is available on Wikipedia and via textbooks on Amazon

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm just assuming it based on the fact that people still try to discover things while learning low hanging fruits of the past like calc or basic geometry in school. the average 8th grader nowdays understands results that were profoud in the past.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At least within mathematics, strictly speaking this isn't true at all. There has been plenty of progress made in the 21st century, but it is too abstract and niche for the public to ever hear about it. Where else in history do you see decade-old and centuries-old problems get solved every other weekend?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      True. For example, the last time a centuries-old problem was even attempted to be solved in the field of sociology was in the 1940s, over 80 years ago now.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Name some that have fundamental beauty and aren't so niche. The fact that some have clear application to cryptography should be clear as to their utility to nations.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is a very good argument for the low hanging fruits theory, because in mathematics you just have way more "low hanging" fruits.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The problem is mostly structural. There's too many hoops to jump through, too many bills to pay, and too much centralization for individuals to achieve as much has they had in the past.

      Math has the lowest "overhead", so to speak. Mathematics can be done by individuals or clubs with just pencils and paper. No one needs specialized equipment, permits, insurance, administrators, and lawyers to do math.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    El Arcón

    It's because the idiots running things shit on everyone that actually has a brain.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Cult of Passion

    Because being blacklisted for telling the truth kills advancement.

    Jordan, Brett, Eric...the average nurse at an average hospital....the list is massive...

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Things needed to make scientific breakthroughs in the past: A piece of glass
    Things needed to make scientific breakthroughs today: Understand everything that was already done in the past + million dollar machinery and materials
    Gee I wonder why

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A piece of glass was not that easy to acquire in the past. Especially as a prism.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Low hanging fruit my ass.
    Newton and Leibniz invented Calculus 300 years ago, and most people, even to this day, have a hard time to understand the basic topics like limits, differentiation and integration, let alone having a deep grasp on the subject to the point where you could say those ideas comes naturally to them.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    bodhi

    I do all the time but everyone on this board is too stupid to understand any of it

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Midwits spammed this thread with dumb esoteric bullshit like it’s typical for IQfy. There are no more single-handedly inventing something geniuses today because all the easy parts of science were discovered. It’s much easier to discover calculus, the first vaccine or be the first guy to describe internal organs then it is to discover plastic-eating worms, cure for cancer or the best way to store 12th dimensional balls in a cube. Lot of them are also less glamorous and impactful, like comparing discovery new ribosome to the discovery of evolution. If you want to be written in history books and be famous for your scientific discovery the best bet is going into upcoming field of science and discover all the basics there. It’s kind of like how in 16th century it was easier to learn all of science, mathematics and physics by the age of 30. Today Leonardo Da Vinchi would be impossible because he would barely be able to become phd in more then 3 areas on knowledge even if he was 250 iq god.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There are no more single-handedly inventing something geniuses today because all the easy parts of science were discovered.
      yes there are you midwit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      poincare laughing at you

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Modern scientists don't do philosophy. It's impossible to be a good scientist without also being a good philosopher. This is also why the great scientists were mostly theists, but modern scientists are mostly atheists.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Genius excels when you have been subjected to stresses and then they go away. Our current society is focused on permanency.
    Jacob Barnett has presented a sketch of this theory at a TedX Talk.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the HR corporate world and bureaucratic academia just attract tight assed brown nosing careerist. They're smart, sure, but they're also hyper conformist who just want large pay checks and comfortable lives.

    Real revolutionary science comes from high IQ transgressive schizos who just want to do radical shit. We know Newton for his work in calculus and physics. But he was also a mystic who spent a fair amount of his time trying to predict doomsday and poring over the Bible. He shoved sewing needles in the corner of his eye while studying vision. IQfy will obsess over IQ which is a necessity, but it alone alone isn't sufficient. If you don't have the Will or Spiritedness to make use of it then you're basically just a calculator. You also need a social network or social infrastructure that caters to these types.

    You know the "low hanging fruit has already been picked" argument is bullshit because scientific advancement has been falling at roughly the same rate for all fields. C'mon, what are the chances of that? It's a little too coincidental scientific progress fell off a cliff when science became 'institutionalized' by brick and mortar establishments.

    You can still find cool things being done, but they're usually from boundary pushing start-ups. I was just watching a vid of a start-up company that's trying to change the weather by launching nucleating agents into the atmosphere via drones. The founder was a bohemian white guy in his 20s basically living out of his garage, go figure.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You know the "low hanging fruit has already been picked" argument is bullshit because scientific advancement has been falling at roughly the same rate for all fields. C'mon, what are the chances of that? It's a little too coincidental scientific progress fell off a cliff when science became 'institutionalized' by brick and mortar establishments.
      In our technological paradigm we probably have exhausted the localized low hanging fruit. If innovation were simple enough to be pursued by mavericks, it'd happen regardless of gatekeeping, because there are plenty of wealthy sponsors and motivated researchers. These innovations wouldn't need to be peer reviewed, they'd just have to work, and then the conniving gatekeepers would have to scramble around them.

      You didn't think things through because you're not especially smart, it's a combination of both.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If innovation were simple enough to be pursued by mavericks, it'd happen regardless of gatekeeping
        *sues you*

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Black person, this is the internet age. Results can be shared anonymously. But mavericks don't even need that. Researchers like He Jiankui were "imprisoned" by China, but he was obviously just working for them in double time in a stealth lab.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok what if one of your lab workers gets hurt on the job and you don't have insurance? What if your research requires using another party's IP? What if you didn't read the fine print and your lab was improperly zoned and/or not up to code?You get the point.

            Sooner or later you have to have someone whose job it is to keep abreast of these sorts of issues and another person to make sure the bills all get paid and another person to do PR and tracking down grants and another person do maintenance and another person to make sure those other people are doing their jobs. Again, you get the point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            These are barely relevant in China. Maybe that's why they're getting so far ahead with innovations that existentially threaten the West.

            Also name who invented Bitcoin. Name who sued/hunted them. Explain why jumping through bureaucratic hoops was, according to you, prerequisite to the technology ruining several billion dollar banks, then explain why they didn't actually have to do those. And financing is the mother of scientific innovation.

            You get the idea.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >These are barely relevant in China
            China just has its own set of bullshit to deal with. However, lawyers and insurance companies ruining everything for everyone is hardly a new problem and probably exists everywhere to varying degrees.
            >innovations that existentially threaten the West
            Like a 1980s tier ballistic missile? Lol

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >In our technological paradigm we probably have exhausted the localized low hanging fruit
        The low-hanging fruit argument implies you already know all of the discoveries to be discovered and the proportion of which is 'low hanging fruit'. But of course you don't, and that's where the analogy falls apart. Or as this anon

        how can we possibly know that there are none left? we don't know what we don't know, i.e. we have no knowledge of how much unknown knowledge is left. one day someone is going to wake up and have a eureka moment and come up with some new world changing shit, and 100 years after that point during another regressive cultural period when nothing groundbreaking is being discovered, someone like you is going to call all discovered knowledge "low hanging fruit"

        in truth, the real problem today is that everyone, including governments, want to monetize their discoveries and use them to gain wealth and power, so new ones are kept under lock and key and never shared with the world and made public for all to scrutinize and build off of.

        aptly said: you don't know what you don't know. There's no rationale for you making such definitive statements because you can't even distinguish 'low hanging fruit' from 'high hanging fruit' until after you discover it to make the comparison.

        >If innovation were simple enough to be pursued by mavericks, it'd happen regardless of gatekeeping
        I never said there was gatekeeping. And I don't think there's a gatekeeping problem. Academia's monopoly on information is largely obsolete thanks to the internet. My two primary arguments for scientific advancement happening were that 1) you need high IQ risk-takers and 2) You need institutions that facilitate the work of these high IQ risk-takers The instructions that we have now are largely hostile to real risk-takers, and they don't truly incentivize risk taking. So I think it's a two-pronged problem, one relating to human capital, and one relating to culture. I was trying to offer an explanation as to why we seemingly don't see much progress being made anymore in traditional channels. To be frank I think you should work on your reading comprehension before commenting. You assumed a lot of things I didn't say.

        >because there are plenty of wealthy sponsors and motivated researchers
        I kind of disagree with this, you don't exactly have a lot of Elon Musk floating around. And moreover, unless these people are funding true mavericks who actually want to do cutting edge research then it will all amount to naught. If you're just doing cookie cutter replication experiments then of course nothing ground breaking will be found.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I never said there was gatekeeping. And I don't think there's a gatekeeping problem.
          Yeah that's why JSTOR charges hundreds or thousands for single articles that they got for pennies on the dollar from their bookworm coolies.

          >The low-hanging fruit argument implies you already know all of the discoveries to be discovered
          No it doesn't stupid. The fact that discoveries involving simple experiments with emphasis on rationalization have been exhausted shows low hanging fruit have been picked. This is true for those needing semi-expensive funding too. They gradually trail off in frequency with every change in technological paradigm.

          >Academia's monopoly on information is largely obsolete thanks to the internet.
          It really isn't. Real cutting edge research pirated is only available at the hundreds of millions price tag and up, and you're ignoring gatekeepers include governments, who are even more secretive. Powerful interest groups can access this data, and with it they can sponsor mavericks. They can even publicize their findings, especially if doing so works to further their political interests. Like with Bitcoin.

          You should work on your general comprehension because you clearly don't think much.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah that's why JSTOR charges hundreds or thousands for single articles that they got for pennies on the dollar from their bookworm coolies
            >what is scihub

            >No it doesn't stupid. The fact that discoveries involving simple experiments with emphasis on rationalization have been exhausted shows low hanging fruit have been picked
            yes, actually it does, stupid. Because classifying a discovery itself as low-hanging or high-hanging is a post-hoc rationalization that's only possible after you've gathered all the information. How can you say, for example, all the scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century are low hanging fruit compared to the future scientific discoveries of the 21st century when you don't even know what they'll be yet? You don't know if future discoveries will happen because of a ridiculously expensive advancement in supercomputing, or some nutty scientist accidently mixes two chemicals by mistake using relatively inexpensive tools you can pick up at a lab supplier. You're trying to make comparative statements on potential future events that haven't even occurred yet, numbnuts.

            >It really isn't. Real cutting edge research pirated is only available at the hundreds of millions price tag and up, and you're ignoring gatekeepers include governments, who are even more secretive
            Manhattan Project tier discoveries, which you're implying here, make up a fraction of the variation in scientific discoveries. But considering most scientific work doesn't revolve around splitting the atom for geopolitical aim, this point is moot. That doesn't explain the rest that don't have geopolitical implications.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Manhattan Project tier discoveries, which you're implying here, make up a fraction of the variation in scientific discoveries. But considering most scientific work doesn't revolve around splitting the atom for geopolitical aim, this point is moot. That doesn't explain the rest that don't have geopolitical implications.
            No they aren't. They're how governments keep an edge on each other.
            >You don't know if future discoveries will happen because of a ridiculously expensive advancement in supercomputing
            I literally spoke in the context of technological paradigms, you illiterate moron.
            The rest of your post is so naive and weak it's not worth addressing.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16020946
    Barely worth a response. You were born yesterday you hick.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's definitely no problems with administrative or legal bloat whatsoever, in research or other areas causing overheads to artificially increase and some gay Pershing II copy will totally put an end to those meanie Americans.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *