11.13.2010

Wunderkindes and cretin with blondes

In comments to my report omeone said of the opinion: "It is the article from heading "Cretins write for blondes", probably. Correct, please". As an author of question felt free in expressions, I also will call a spade a spade and on me for it I ask not offended.

Really, normal such will not be written. At most, what the normal are capable on, so it is dull to teach someone once written. And than better they it is quoted then, the are more clever considered. Both religion and science sticks to thereon. Dull untalented mediocrity which considers itself a norm and which is managed by more sharp untalented to mediocrity turns out in the total. Any bureaucratic vehicle consists of them, from normal. All, who though by something from a norm differs, are considered fools and fools. What, I agree to be a fool or cretin which writes for fools and blondes.

I would not begin to watch out for this comment, if he was not the object-lesson of other problem. One scientific site on which solid scientists communicate and one of them formulated such question was here remembered me: "MANY CLEVER COLLECTIONS of TASKS And GUYS WHICH DECIDE THEM. WHY THEN SO FEW DISCOVERIS"?. Farther a few quotations are for illustration of problem:

I was always surprised by one circumstance. When look tasks which are offered in our collections of tasks on physics and on mathematics for high school and institute of higher, on school olympiads, at entering university and so ддалее, then there is the impression, that they are counted on supermen. In any event, suppose the very high level of possession material. And some tasks in a mathematical magazine "Quantum" - it in general, to my mind, whole research, counted on the experienced specialist. Moreover, appears, there are guys (and I personally by a sign not with one!) which all these the tasks decide easily.

Certainly, we have very clever and capable young people. Why then, if do we decide intricate problems so easily, we so few accomplish discoveris?

... By the way, the same phenomenon I look after in the West. Take in hands collection of tasks on physics for the graduate students of Massachusetts Institute of Technology or collection of tasks on a gravitation and theory of relativity edited from Saul Teukolsky. They on someone are counted. Them someone decides. But where is discoveris equivalent to the tasks, published in books?


It is a problem, lying inplane division of people on fools and normal. First let us understand with the decision of tasks. What task? It by someone the made set of basic data and question on which it is needed to give an answer. Problem definition supposes application already of the known method of decision. For the decision of task it is enough to learn material and apply the got knowledge. An ordinary calculator turns out. What quicker such calculator decides tasks, the he is considered more clever. There are even wunderkindes which tasks decide - as nuts break. All this system of tasks and decisions differs small what from the system of training of animals. For a wunderkind-calculator, instead of command, it is enough to formulate a task, id est to say what where it is needed to find.

All of it results in that at taught standard character of thought is produced. Standard tasks decide standard methods easily and simply. It is needed only to deviate from standards - problems begin here. Let us try to decide a task, which it is scientifically well-proven for, that this task can not be decided. Who will engage in the decision of such task? Only fools. Normal, and the more so clever, never such task to decide will not become. They know an answer, by someone once written: "Task does not have a decision". Will fools be able to decide this task? Improbably, because and clever, and fools use identical standard principles of decision. Who can decide a similar task? That, whoever knows that this task does not have a decision and whoever uses standard principles of decision. Quite naturally, what a decision will be acknowledged as a discoveri.

Here historical fact. When the American mathematician George Dantzig was the student of university, then was once late to a lesson and counted up the equalizations written on a board a homework. Equalizations seemed to him more difficult, than set usually, but in a few days he did a homework however. Appeared, that these were tasks on statistics, on the decision of that many scientists worked and that at that time were considered "undecided".

And now we will go back to fools-blondes. All consider them fools because:

at first, their character of thought differs from standard;
secondly, they memorize standards badly.

Based on aforesaid, I have all grounds to assert that one blonde has many more chances to do a discoveri, what at all wunderkind-calculators, together taken. You will memorize: among normal there are not genii.

No comments:

Post a Comment