Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

thegamegestapo    

Rank #5802 on Comments
thegamegestapo Avatar Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Offline
Send mail to thegamegestapo Block thegamegestapo Invite thegamegestapo to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 113
Date Signed Up:6/28/2011
Last Login:7/27/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5802
Highest Content Rank:#3644
Highest Comment Rank:#483
Content Thumbs: 1658 total,  1850 ,  192
Comment Thumbs: 16900 total,  20421 ,  3521
Content Level Progress: 53% (53/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 71.7% (717/1000)
Level 316 Comments: Wizard → Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:0
Content Views:15617
Times Content Favorited:181 times
Total Comments Made:3393
FJ Points:2100

latest user's comments

#157 - God damn Caesar was a cool guy.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/30/2014 on Random Fact Comp 10 0
#178 - gerfox (04/30/2014) [-]
This was also before he rose to any significant power. This raid by Caesar was actually one of few Roman anti-piracy actions until Pompey the Great cleaned up the Mediterranean.
#158 - Oh stop arguing and let the Wookie win. 04/29/2014 on woah +2
#65 - Oh, and let's not forget that all of his children went on to g… 04/29/2014 on Han Solo 0
#82 - I misread that T as an I so for me that said: I hen,… 04/29/2014 on question answers +12
#71 - That's actually pretty funny of him. Pretty evident who won th… 04/29/2014 on When life throws you a... +13
#204 - >Roman roads still in use today That'd be my street bas… 04/29/2014 on Random Fact Comp 6 0
#48 - Register already Captain Hippy. The law is the law. …  [+] (2 new replies) 04/27/2014 on a great message +2
User avatar #64 - durkadurka (04/27/2014) [-]
You gotta remember that the founders were also products of their time. While it's not excusable we have to consider that racist overtones is a reflection of society at the time and not necessarily the individual.

The founders did compromise a lot with each other out of necessity as you say. It's why the issue of slavery wasn't really dealt with; the colonies didn't exactly see eye to eye on slavery and wouldn't have united.
#56 - biscuitsunited (04/27/2014) [-]
#183 - That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your … 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#180 - They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#167 - There is evidently a difference in the computing and scientifi…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#175 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
But isn't this generally my point with regards to this? Just because I said that nobody in the world of computer science is more important than the next one, it doesn't mean that they don't all think they're the greatest.

Granted, I have no experience with any actual work in research, but from years of being a student, I can guarantee you that there are tons of people, who because of these arrogant ideas, such as "Why would I need to learn X when the only thing that matters is Y?", doesn't take something like math seriously.
User avatar #180 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's like a chef who makes pasta will know how to cook meat for lasagne but he won't think it's as important as the pasta itself whereas a steak chef will know how to make potato wedges (this is possibly the worst metaphor I could have chosen) but will consider the steak the most important part.

But yeah, I agree in principle. Also, your picture summarised the rivalry perfectly.
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#148 - Ever meet a high level physicist? You're certainly right about…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#162 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It doesn't have to be an argument (never was to me), you know. Arguing generally leads nowhere, because it's usually born from the desire of either party members want to "be right" in what they say.

But with regard to what you said, I'd say this isn't true. I'm not a physicist, but I've spoke to a lot of people who are extremely good physicists and I'd say they've all been very nice and respectful, because of said humility where they acknowledge they too can be wrong.

Also with regards to the conga-line of assholes (lol), I'd say that you pretty much show there why none of them are supposed to be seen as smarter than the others. It's a fact that people are going to have a different set of skills and you should never prematurely evaluate one persons skills over another.

For instance, in computer science, smart guy A might have an excellent idea for an algorithm that will solve some problems in a system, but no idea on how to implement it well.
That's where smart guy B, who is really good at programming comes in handy, because he is familiar with how you implement and document implementation well.
In this case, smart guy A and B are equally important, because you can't implement a solution without both the idea and good implementation.
User avatar #167 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
There is evidently a difference in the computing and scientific community. That's reassuring to say the least.

In the minds of the best scientists their particular sub-specialisation is the key to saving the world/understanding the universe/curing every disease ever. That's one of the reasons I like biology. People are less psychotic and grasp the idea that interdisciplinary research is necessary even if they do maintain that their branch is the best.

If you ever want to see something terrifying then put a biologist, a chemist, a physicist and a mathematician in the same room and ask "so which is the most important in real life". Just make sure you run before they get the whiteboards out.
#175 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
But isn't this generally my point with regards to this? Just because I said that nobody in the world of computer science is more important than the next one, it doesn't mean that they don't all think they're the greatest.

Granted, I have no experience with any actual work in research, but from years of being a student, I can guarantee you that there are tons of people, who because of these arrogant ideas, such as "Why would I need to learn X when the only thing that matters is Y?", doesn't take something like math seriously.
User avatar #180 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's like a chef who makes pasta will know how to cook meat for lasagne but he won't think it's as important as the pasta itself whereas a steak chef will know how to make potato wedges (this is possibly the worst metaphor I could have chosen) but will consider the steak the most important part.

But yeah, I agree in principle. Also, your picture summarised the rivalry perfectly.
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#111 - That's fair enough a point only Blackscienceman and I share th…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#123 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It's rather irrelevant when they start. Most of the greatest doctors and engineers out there didn't start to learn their trades until college. But that really isn't relevant to the point we were talking about.

The thing you have to take from this is that people can easily be encouraged without having a bloated ego. I'd even say that it's more important to develop scientific communities where all the members respect each other, because as much as we like to idolize a few select people and blow their deeds out of proportion, most of the scientific progress we've made in the last century or so was done by a community, not a few select individuals.
User avatar #148 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
Ever meet a high level physicist? You're certainly right about the majority of smart people who are both intelligent and modest but the really genius pioneers are almost exclusively arrogant to the point that you can't hold a conversation. We say it was made by groups but that translates to one smart asshole having an idea but not being able to solve the equation, then a second asshole comes along who can do some of it but also can't complete the equation until finally one final asshole solves the problem and they all argue amongst themselves over who's contribution was the most important and therefore who deserves the credit.

I'm starting to wonder what we're actually arguing about now since Blackscienceman was just being nice to a kid who showed interest.
#162 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It doesn't have to be an argument (never was to me), you know. Arguing generally leads nowhere, because it's usually born from the desire of either party members want to "be right" in what they say.

But with regard to what you said, I'd say this isn't true. I'm not a physicist, but I've spoke to a lot of people who are extremely good physicists and I'd say they've all been very nice and respectful, because of said humility where they acknowledge they too can be wrong.

Also with regards to the conga-line of assholes (lol), I'd say that you pretty much show there why none of them are supposed to be seen as smarter than the others. It's a fact that people are going to have a different set of skills and you should never prematurely evaluate one persons skills over another.

For instance, in computer science, smart guy A might have an excellent idea for an algorithm that will solve some problems in a system, but no idea on how to implement it well.
That's where smart guy B, who is really good at programming comes in handy, because he is familiar with how you implement and document implementation well.
In this case, smart guy A and B are equally important, because you can't implement a solution without both the idea and good implementation.
User avatar #167 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
There is evidently a difference in the computing and scientific community. That's reassuring to say the least.

In the minds of the best scientists their particular sub-specialisation is the key to saving the world/understanding the universe/curing every disease ever. That's one of the reasons I like biology. People are less psychotic and grasp the idea that interdisciplinary research is necessary even if they do maintain that their branch is the best.

If you ever want to see something terrifying then put a biologist, a chemist, a physicist and a mathematician in the same room and ask "so which is the most important in real life". Just make sure you run before they get the whiteboards out.
#175 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
But isn't this generally my point with regards to this? Just because I said that nobody in the world of computer science is more important than the next one, it doesn't mean that they don't all think they're the greatest.

Granted, I have no experience with any actual work in research, but from years of being a student, I can guarantee you that there are tons of people, who because of these arrogant ideas, such as "Why would I need to learn X when the only thing that matters is Y?", doesn't take something like math seriously.
User avatar #180 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's like a chef who makes pasta will know how to cook meat for lasagne but he won't think it's as important as the pasta itself whereas a steak chef will know how to make potato wedges (this is possibly the worst metaphor I could have chosen) but will consider the steak the most important part.

But yeah, I agree in principle. Also, your picture summarised the rivalry perfectly.
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#106 - He had enough of an understanding to know that it was a questi…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#108 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
and I was asking questions like the child was.

Look, you seem like you know something, hence the picture you uploaded, so I'll give you this to make sure that you understand the disposition.

It's not bad to encourage someone to learn. Praise is due for when a child asks and genuinely wants answers to a question they don't have to learn, because it shows initiative towards learning and everybody wants an educated society.

However, what blackscienceman said was something that feeds arrogance, he didn't exclaim that he was impressed by such unusual initiative, he said that he was much smarter than what is common of his age.

Some kids are interested in dinosaurs, some in knights and some in black holes, neither of these kids are going to be the smarter because of such an interest. It's important to not make any of these kids feel smarter, because otherwise you end up with situations like the one I'm experiencing in college right now, where some people grow up to assert that they are simply correct.

Humility is extremely important, because you need to be able to question whether or not you're actually correct in something and doing that requires that you can assume that you can be wrong, which most people who grow up to be arrogant, can't.
User avatar #111 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That's fair enough a point only Blackscienceman and I share the view that every great scientist started off as a kid who was interested in something. Today this kid is asking about them but maybe in 40 years or so he'll have kept up his interest and has now worked out how to induce them.

Probably not going to happen but if Blackscienceman inspires a hundred kids like him then surely one or two keep up an interest. I'd rather have 99 moderately arrogant adults and one guy who invents time travel than 100 modest people.

But that's just my opinion.
#123 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It's rather irrelevant when they start. Most of the greatest doctors and engineers out there didn't start to learn their trades until college. But that really isn't relevant to the point we were talking about.

The thing you have to take from this is that people can easily be encouraged without having a bloated ego. I'd even say that it's more important to develop scientific communities where all the members respect each other, because as much as we like to idolize a few select people and blow their deeds out of proportion, most of the scientific progress we've made in the last century or so was done by a community, not a few select individuals.
User avatar #148 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
Ever meet a high level physicist? You're certainly right about the majority of smart people who are both intelligent and modest but the really genius pioneers are almost exclusively arrogant to the point that you can't hold a conversation. We say it was made by groups but that translates to one smart asshole having an idea but not being able to solve the equation, then a second asshole comes along who can do some of it but also can't complete the equation until finally one final asshole solves the problem and they all argue amongst themselves over who's contribution was the most important and therefore who deserves the credit.

I'm starting to wonder what we're actually arguing about now since Blackscienceman was just being nice to a kid who showed interest.
#162 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It doesn't have to be an argument (never was to me), you know. Arguing generally leads nowhere, because it's usually born from the desire of either party members want to "be right" in what they say.

But with regard to what you said, I'd say this isn't true. I'm not a physicist, but I've spoke to a lot of people who are extremely good physicists and I'd say they've all been very nice and respectful, because of said humility where they acknowledge they too can be wrong.

Also with regards to the conga-line of assholes (lol), I'd say that you pretty much show there why none of them are supposed to be seen as smarter than the others. It's a fact that people are going to have a different set of skills and you should never prematurely evaluate one persons skills over another.

For instance, in computer science, smart guy A might have an excellent idea for an algorithm that will solve some problems in a system, but no idea on how to implement it well.
That's where smart guy B, who is really good at programming comes in handy, because he is familiar with how you implement and document implementation well.
In this case, smart guy A and B are equally important, because you can't implement a solution without both the idea and good implementation.
User avatar #167 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
There is evidently a difference in the computing and scientific community. That's reassuring to say the least.

In the minds of the best scientists their particular sub-specialisation is the key to saving the world/understanding the universe/curing every disease ever. That's one of the reasons I like biology. People are less psychotic and grasp the idea that interdisciplinary research is necessary even if they do maintain that their branch is the best.

If you ever want to see something terrifying then put a biologist, a chemist, a physicist and a mathematician in the same room and ask "so which is the most important in real life". Just make sure you run before they get the whiteboards out.
#175 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
But isn't this generally my point with regards to this? Just because I said that nobody in the world of computer science is more important than the next one, it doesn't mean that they don't all think they're the greatest.

Granted, I have no experience with any actual work in research, but from years of being a student, I can guarantee you that there are tons of people, who because of these arrogant ideas, such as "Why would I need to learn X when the only thing that matters is Y?", doesn't take something like math seriously.
User avatar #180 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's like a chef who makes pasta will know how to cook meat for lasagne but he won't think it's as important as the pasta itself whereas a steak chef will know how to make potato wedges (this is possibly the worst metaphor I could have chosen) but will consider the steak the most important part.

But yeah, I agree in principle. Also, your picture summarised the rivalry perfectly.
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#104 - You see the issue. Sorry about my handwriting. 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#99 - I don't necessarily agree with you there. That's a pretty big …  [+] (12 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#103 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It really isn't a big question. There is no way for the kid to understand the question it from a scientific standpoint without the necessary background, so it's going to come from an intuitive standpoint.

The thing about intuitive standpoints is that they're easy to understand, even for a 2nd grader. Besides, whether or not the question is difficult or not is irrelevant, because the point is still that what he said feeds the kind of arrogance that makes some people believe that they're generally smarter than others.
User avatar #106 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
He had enough of an understanding to know that it was a question worth asking. If you'd asked me when I was his age I would have said "I don't see why not"
#108 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
and I was asking questions like the child was.

Look, you seem like you know something, hence the picture you uploaded, so I'll give you this to make sure that you understand the disposition.

It's not bad to encourage someone to learn. Praise is due for when a child asks and genuinely wants answers to a question they don't have to learn, because it shows initiative towards learning and everybody wants an educated society.

However, what blackscienceman said was something that feeds arrogance, he didn't exclaim that he was impressed by such unusual initiative, he said that he was much smarter than what is common of his age.

Some kids are interested in dinosaurs, some in knights and some in black holes, neither of these kids are going to be the smarter because of such an interest. It's important to not make any of these kids feel smarter, because otherwise you end up with situations like the one I'm experiencing in college right now, where some people grow up to assert that they are simply correct.

Humility is extremely important, because you need to be able to question whether or not you're actually correct in something and doing that requires that you can assume that you can be wrong, which most people who grow up to be arrogant, can't.
User avatar #111 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That's fair enough a point only Blackscienceman and I share the view that every great scientist started off as a kid who was interested in something. Today this kid is asking about them but maybe in 40 years or so he'll have kept up his interest and has now worked out how to induce them.

Probably not going to happen but if Blackscienceman inspires a hundred kids like him then surely one or two keep up an interest. I'd rather have 99 moderately arrogant adults and one guy who invents time travel than 100 modest people.

But that's just my opinion.
#123 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It's rather irrelevant when they start. Most of the greatest doctors and engineers out there didn't start to learn their trades until college. But that really isn't relevant to the point we were talking about.

The thing you have to take from this is that people can easily be encouraged without having a bloated ego. I'd even say that it's more important to develop scientific communities where all the members respect each other, because as much as we like to idolize a few select people and blow their deeds out of proportion, most of the scientific progress we've made in the last century or so was done by a community, not a few select individuals.
User avatar #148 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
Ever meet a high level physicist? You're certainly right about the majority of smart people who are both intelligent and modest but the really genius pioneers are almost exclusively arrogant to the point that you can't hold a conversation. We say it was made by groups but that translates to one smart asshole having an idea but not being able to solve the equation, then a second asshole comes along who can do some of it but also can't complete the equation until finally one final asshole solves the problem and they all argue amongst themselves over who's contribution was the most important and therefore who deserves the credit.

I'm starting to wonder what we're actually arguing about now since Blackscienceman was just being nice to a kid who showed interest.
#162 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It doesn't have to be an argument (never was to me), you know. Arguing generally leads nowhere, because it's usually born from the desire of either party members want to "be right" in what they say.

But with regard to what you said, I'd say this isn't true. I'm not a physicist, but I've spoke to a lot of people who are extremely good physicists and I'd say they've all been very nice and respectful, because of said humility where they acknowledge they too can be wrong.

Also with regards to the conga-line of assholes (lol), I'd say that you pretty much show there why none of them are supposed to be seen as smarter than the others. It's a fact that people are going to have a different set of skills and you should never prematurely evaluate one persons skills over another.

For instance, in computer science, smart guy A might have an excellent idea for an algorithm that will solve some problems in a system, but no idea on how to implement it well.
That's where smart guy B, who is really good at programming comes in handy, because he is familiar with how you implement and document implementation well.
In this case, smart guy A and B are equally important, because you can't implement a solution without both the idea and good implementation.
User avatar #167 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
There is evidently a difference in the computing and scientific community. That's reassuring to say the least.

In the minds of the best scientists their particular sub-specialisation is the key to saving the world/understanding the universe/curing every disease ever. That's one of the reasons I like biology. People are less psychotic and grasp the idea that interdisciplinary research is necessary even if they do maintain that their branch is the best.

If you ever want to see something terrifying then put a biologist, a chemist, a physicist and a mathematician in the same room and ask "so which is the most important in real life". Just make sure you run before they get the whiteboards out.
#175 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
But isn't this generally my point with regards to this? Just because I said that nobody in the world of computer science is more important than the next one, it doesn't mean that they don't all think they're the greatest.

Granted, I have no experience with any actual work in research, but from years of being a student, I can guarantee you that there are tons of people, who because of these arrogant ideas, such as "Why would I need to learn X when the only thing that matters is Y?", doesn't take something like math seriously.
User avatar #180 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's like a chef who makes pasta will know how to cook meat for lasagne but he won't think it's as important as the pasta itself whereas a steak chef will know how to make potato wedges (this is possibly the worst metaphor I could have chosen) but will consider the steak the most important part.

But yeah, I agree in principle. Also, your picture summarised the rivalry perfectly.
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#94 - Actually, no. The event was primarily aimed at Physics student…  [+] (15 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man 0
#97 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I just assumed that the event was alike his usual "lectures", so it's possible I'm wrong there, but the point regarding the kid still stands.
#104 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
You see the issue. Sorry about my handwriting.
User avatar #99 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
I don't necessarily agree with you there. That's a pretty big question and frankly the fact that the kid is thinking about it is more than a little impressive.

Whether he knew it or not this is the sort of thing that makes heads hurt. One second while I show you what I mean.
#103 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It really isn't a big question. There is no way for the kid to understand the question it from a scientific standpoint without the necessary background, so it's going to come from an intuitive standpoint.

The thing about intuitive standpoints is that they're easy to understand, even for a 2nd grader. Besides, whether or not the question is difficult or not is irrelevant, because the point is still that what he said feeds the kind of arrogance that makes some people believe that they're generally smarter than others.
User avatar #106 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
He had enough of an understanding to know that it was a question worth asking. If you'd asked me when I was his age I would have said "I don't see why not"
#108 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
and I was asking questions like the child was.

Look, you seem like you know something, hence the picture you uploaded, so I'll give you this to make sure that you understand the disposition.

It's not bad to encourage someone to learn. Praise is due for when a child asks and genuinely wants answers to a question they don't have to learn, because it shows initiative towards learning and everybody wants an educated society.

However, what blackscienceman said was something that feeds arrogance, he didn't exclaim that he was impressed by such unusual initiative, he said that he was much smarter than what is common of his age.

Some kids are interested in dinosaurs, some in knights and some in black holes, neither of these kids are going to be the smarter because of such an interest. It's important to not make any of these kids feel smarter, because otherwise you end up with situations like the one I'm experiencing in college right now, where some people grow up to assert that they are simply correct.

Humility is extremely important, because you need to be able to question whether or not you're actually correct in something and doing that requires that you can assume that you can be wrong, which most people who grow up to be arrogant, can't.
User avatar #111 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That's fair enough a point only Blackscienceman and I share the view that every great scientist started off as a kid who was interested in something. Today this kid is asking about them but maybe in 40 years or so he'll have kept up his interest and has now worked out how to induce them.

Probably not going to happen but if Blackscienceman inspires a hundred kids like him then surely one or two keep up an interest. I'd rather have 99 moderately arrogant adults and one guy who invents time travel than 100 modest people.

But that's just my opinion.
#123 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It's rather irrelevant when they start. Most of the greatest doctors and engineers out there didn't start to learn their trades until college. But that really isn't relevant to the point we were talking about.

The thing you have to take from this is that people can easily be encouraged without having a bloated ego. I'd even say that it's more important to develop scientific communities where all the members respect each other, because as much as we like to idolize a few select people and blow their deeds out of proportion, most of the scientific progress we've made in the last century or so was done by a community, not a few select individuals.
User avatar #148 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
Ever meet a high level physicist? You're certainly right about the majority of smart people who are both intelligent and modest but the really genius pioneers are almost exclusively arrogant to the point that you can't hold a conversation. We say it was made by groups but that translates to one smart asshole having an idea but not being able to solve the equation, then a second asshole comes along who can do some of it but also can't complete the equation until finally one final asshole solves the problem and they all argue amongst themselves over who's contribution was the most important and therefore who deserves the credit.

I'm starting to wonder what we're actually arguing about now since Blackscienceman was just being nice to a kid who showed interest.
#162 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It doesn't have to be an argument (never was to me), you know. Arguing generally leads nowhere, because it's usually born from the desire of either party members want to "be right" in what they say.

But with regard to what you said, I'd say this isn't true. I'm not a physicist, but I've spoke to a lot of people who are extremely good physicists and I'd say they've all been very nice and respectful, because of said humility where they acknowledge they too can be wrong.

Also with regards to the conga-line of assholes (lol), I'd say that you pretty much show there why none of them are supposed to be seen as smarter than the others. It's a fact that people are going to have a different set of skills and you should never prematurely evaluate one persons skills over another.

For instance, in computer science, smart guy A might have an excellent idea for an algorithm that will solve some problems in a system, but no idea on how to implement it well.
That's where smart guy B, who is really good at programming comes in handy, because he is familiar with how you implement and document implementation well.
In this case, smart guy A and B are equally important, because you can't implement a solution without both the idea and good implementation.
User avatar #167 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
There is evidently a difference in the computing and scientific community. That's reassuring to say the least.

In the minds of the best scientists their particular sub-specialisation is the key to saving the world/understanding the universe/curing every disease ever. That's one of the reasons I like biology. People are less psychotic and grasp the idea that interdisciplinary research is necessary even if they do maintain that their branch is the best.

If you ever want to see something terrifying then put a biologist, a chemist, a physicist and a mathematician in the same room and ask "so which is the most important in real life". Just make sure you run before they get the whiteboards out.
#175 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
But isn't this generally my point with regards to this? Just because I said that nobody in the world of computer science is more important than the next one, it doesn't mean that they don't all think they're the greatest.

Granted, I have no experience with any actual work in research, but from years of being a student, I can guarantee you that there are tons of people, who because of these arrogant ideas, such as "Why would I need to learn X when the only thing that matters is Y?", doesn't take something like math seriously.
User avatar #180 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's like a chef who makes pasta will know how to cook meat for lasagne but he won't think it's as important as the pasta itself whereas a steak chef will know how to make potato wedges (this is possibly the worst metaphor I could have chosen) but will consider the steak the most important part.

But yeah, I agree in principle. Also, your picture summarised the rivalry perfectly.
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#629 - Heil HYDRA 04/25/2014 on Repent your sins in here +2
#88 - He isn't being praised for being smart there, like the other k…  [+] (17 new replies) 04/25/2014 on Black science man +1
#89 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
"You're in the 2nd grade and you're thinking about colliding black holes? You belong in 12th grade!"

Besides, "lectures" like the one blackscienceman holds, aren't designed for actual academics. They're designed exactly for people like the little boy here.
User avatar #94 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
Actually, no. The event was primarily aimed at Physics students as part of a science conference. Every person on that panel has a higher level of academic training than your average surgeon. You'll notice there are no other children in the room.
#97 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I just assumed that the event was alike his usual "lectures", so it's possible I'm wrong there, but the point regarding the kid still stands.
#104 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
You see the issue. Sorry about my handwriting.
User avatar #99 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
I don't necessarily agree with you there. That's a pretty big question and frankly the fact that the kid is thinking about it is more than a little impressive.

Whether he knew it or not this is the sort of thing that makes heads hurt. One second while I show you what I mean.
#103 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It really isn't a big question. There is no way for the kid to understand the question it from a scientific standpoint without the necessary background, so it's going to come from an intuitive standpoint.

The thing about intuitive standpoints is that they're easy to understand, even for a 2nd grader. Besides, whether or not the question is difficult or not is irrelevant, because the point is still that what he said feeds the kind of arrogance that makes some people believe that they're generally smarter than others.
User avatar #106 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
He had enough of an understanding to know that it was a question worth asking. If you'd asked me when I was his age I would have said "I don't see why not"
#108 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
and I was asking questions like the child was.

Look, you seem like you know something, hence the picture you uploaded, so I'll give you this to make sure that you understand the disposition.

It's not bad to encourage someone to learn. Praise is due for when a child asks and genuinely wants answers to a question they don't have to learn, because it shows initiative towards learning and everybody wants an educated society.

However, what blackscienceman said was something that feeds arrogance, he didn't exclaim that he was impressed by such unusual initiative, he said that he was much smarter than what is common of his age.

Some kids are interested in dinosaurs, some in knights and some in black holes, neither of these kids are going to be the smarter because of such an interest. It's important to not make any of these kids feel smarter, because otherwise you end up with situations like the one I'm experiencing in college right now, where some people grow up to assert that they are simply correct.

Humility is extremely important, because you need to be able to question whether or not you're actually correct in something and doing that requires that you can assume that you can be wrong, which most people who grow up to be arrogant, can't.
User avatar #111 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That's fair enough a point only Blackscienceman and I share the view that every great scientist started off as a kid who was interested in something. Today this kid is asking about them but maybe in 40 years or so he'll have kept up his interest and has now worked out how to induce them.

Probably not going to happen but if Blackscienceman inspires a hundred kids like him then surely one or two keep up an interest. I'd rather have 99 moderately arrogant adults and one guy who invents time travel than 100 modest people.

But that's just my opinion.
#123 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It's rather irrelevant when they start. Most of the greatest doctors and engineers out there didn't start to learn their trades until college. But that really isn't relevant to the point we were talking about.

The thing you have to take from this is that people can easily be encouraged without having a bloated ego. I'd even say that it's more important to develop scientific communities where all the members respect each other, because as much as we like to idolize a few select people and blow their deeds out of proportion, most of the scientific progress we've made in the last century or so was done by a community, not a few select individuals.
User avatar #148 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
Ever meet a high level physicist? You're certainly right about the majority of smart people who are both intelligent and modest but the really genius pioneers are almost exclusively arrogant to the point that you can't hold a conversation. We say it was made by groups but that translates to one smart asshole having an idea but not being able to solve the equation, then a second asshole comes along who can do some of it but also can't complete the equation until finally one final asshole solves the problem and they all argue amongst themselves over who's contribution was the most important and therefore who deserves the credit.

I'm starting to wonder what we're actually arguing about now since Blackscienceman was just being nice to a kid who showed interest.
#162 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
It doesn't have to be an argument (never was to me), you know. Arguing generally leads nowhere, because it's usually born from the desire of either party members want to "be right" in what they say.

But with regard to what you said, I'd say this isn't true. I'm not a physicist, but I've spoke to a lot of people who are extremely good physicists and I'd say they've all been very nice and respectful, because of said humility where they acknowledge they too can be wrong.

Also with regards to the conga-line of assholes (lol), I'd say that you pretty much show there why none of them are supposed to be seen as smarter than the others. It's a fact that people are going to have a different set of skills and you should never prematurely evaluate one persons skills over another.

For instance, in computer science, smart guy A might have an excellent idea for an algorithm that will solve some problems in a system, but no idea on how to implement it well.
That's where smart guy B, who is really good at programming comes in handy, because he is familiar with how you implement and document implementation well.
In this case, smart guy A and B are equally important, because you can't implement a solution without both the idea and good implementation.
User avatar #167 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
There is evidently a difference in the computing and scientific community. That's reassuring to say the least.

In the minds of the best scientists their particular sub-specialisation is the key to saving the world/understanding the universe/curing every disease ever. That's one of the reasons I like biology. People are less psychotic and grasp the idea that interdisciplinary research is necessary even if they do maintain that their branch is the best.

If you ever want to see something terrifying then put a biologist, a chemist, a physicist and a mathematician in the same room and ask "so which is the most important in real life". Just make sure you run before they get the whiteboards out.
#175 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
But isn't this generally my point with regards to this? Just because I said that nobody in the world of computer science is more important than the next one, it doesn't mean that they don't all think they're the greatest.

Granted, I have no experience with any actual work in research, but from years of being a student, I can guarantee you that there are tons of people, who because of these arrogant ideas, such as "Why would I need to learn X when the only thing that matters is Y?", doesn't take something like math seriously.
User avatar #180 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
They take Maths seriously just only as a means to an end. It's like a chef who makes pasta will know how to cook meat for lasagne but he won't think it's as important as the pasta itself whereas a steak chef will know how to make potato wedges (this is possibly the worst metaphor I could have chosen) but will consider the steak the most important part.

But yeah, I agree in principle. Also, your picture summarised the rivalry perfectly.
#181 - okappadesu (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't understand your analogy at all and at this point we might just be rambling.

I think the conclusion can be summarized as "If you don't learn computer science, you're a loser."
User avatar #183 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2014) [-]
That seems in order however I am forced to disagree with your conclusion as genetics is clearly superior.

And yeah, I think we are rambling now
#84 - Actually the kid did. 04/25/2014 on Black science man +1
#311 - I'd imagine that he never complains out of respect. Can you im… 04/25/2014 on Thor 0
#245 - Closest I ever did to a RP was the first time I ever played F:… 04/22/2014 on I Fucked Up 0
#240 - While I also doubt his story I have to disagree about the numb… 04/22/2014 on I Fucked Up 0
#237 - >Scorpions are in the way >There is a limit to how f… 04/22/2014 on I Fucked Up +5
#71 - Dat spoiler. 04/21/2014 on Roma Invicta Pasta +1
#29 - Big Davy C still pretending to be relevant I see. 04/21/2014 on The Male Struggle +5
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0
  • x10

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)