>tfw watching Feynman's Fun To Imagine and realizing
You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math
>tfw watching Feynman's Fun To Imagine and realizing that memorizing whole encyclopedias won't come near to his inherent intelligence
Why should one even try after seeing such an astonishing genius in action /sci/?
>>8135434
you shouldn't.
leave it to people who can actually draw connexions, ie create more knowledge from what they already know.
since when was it about intelligence?
What does memorizing encyclopedias have to do with intelligence?
Any computer can do it easily, but check Microsoft's captionbot and see how dumb computers are.
>>8135434
the whole reason feynman is a great idol is that he wasn't inherently superintelligent (comparitively speaking).
If you read his autobiography you will find out about all the hard work and tricks that went into building his reputation - the guy just had incredible willpower.
Now if you want to have your soul crushed for real, look up someone like Gauss or Von Neumann
>>8137208
>the whole reason feynman is a great idol is that he wasn't inherently superintelligent
http://www.maa.org/programs/maa-awards/putnam-competition-individual-and-team-winners
Ctrl+f "Richard P. Feynman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
>>8137238
i said comparitively speaking
relative to the alltime greats, hes nothing, but obviously a fucking Nobel laurate is going ot have some smarts
>>8137239
>relative to the alltime greats
He was a putnam fellow practically without training for the competition.
He's definitely up there with the all-time greats, just because he managed to put things in a way you can understant them it doesn't mean he's dumber, if anything that makes him smarter.
>>8137247
I can see where you're coming from, but you underestimate some of the "great" greats.
Feynman himself said that he felt completely lost and outclassed when talking to Einstein and working with Oppenheimer at international conferences.
Look up Neumann, for real.
>>8137247
here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Cognitive_abilities
>>8137250
I know who Neumann is, how little credit do you give me?
Furthermore, I also know Oppenheimer said this about Feynmann: "He is a second Dirac, only this time human."
That's good enough for me to class Feynmann among the greats, and it should be for everyone else too.
>>8137257
If you can get a hold of it, read the "Monster Minds" section of Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman - he details meeting the greats there.
And I apologise for the condescension, but this is 4chan after all.