Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: tumblr_mz9yn3uhdL1qzbqw1o1_500.png (214KB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
214KB, 500x500px
I made a thread a while ago asking why if /sci/'s IQ is so high and you all attend top schools why has no-one here developed anything new and in addition to getting the usual "smart but lazy" bullshit but also many claimed that it's impossible for anyone without a PhD and huge research group to create anything new so why is it that many of the technological advancements of the 20th century were conceived of by amateurs? The airplane was invented by two bicycle mechanics, The stealth bomber was invented by the Horton brothers who were flying club members who never spent a day in university. The wankel engine, Felix Wankel never had a degree. Fast forward to the end of the 20th century the electronics age was virtually run by degree-less amateurs, Jobs and Gates etc. So why /sci/, why are untrained plebs pissing on all of your achievements? It is because you are not really smart, you're just good at passing exams.
>tech is too advanced nowadays
That's a "everything has already been invented" cop-out there is always new fields popping up. The 70s was pretty advanced what with trips to the Moon and fusion research going on yet Wozniak still managed to innovate. You can call yourself smart not when you have gotten into some college course or worse scored high in some online IQ test but when you have either published a research paper or hold a marketable patent.
>>
>>7842100
Why haven't you?
>>
>>7842100
All of the last 20th century innovators are computer people. That shit was new then. Now it's not.
>>
>>7842113
There are new things going on now. Drones, cheap VR etc. Wasn't that Australian kid who was in the news recently for inventing a new more efficient ion rocket just an undergraduate?
>>
> pick a few exceptions and imply they are the rule
Who invented the foundation of modern society? A bunch of PhD's at Bell Labs. Why does no one hear about them? Because highly trained individuals doing what they are trained to do is not as sexy as the occasional guy that eschews the standard route with some skill and a lot of luck.
>>
File: 1454884760429.png (268KB, 499x499px) Image search:
[Google]
268KB, 499x499px
>>7842100
>why has no-one here developed anything new
Because I'm busy posting green frog pictures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JybITdCrqyU
>>
>>7842144
>They just got lucky
This is as bad as "smart but lazy"
>>
While there are plenty of people who made breakthroughs despite not going through traditional schooling systems, they are dwarfed by the people that did.
>>
>>7842298
Those people are smarter because they did it without formal education. You have had your hand held yet you still haven't done anything noteworthy.
>>
>>7842177
For every "good" idea, there are many more "bad" ideas. For every Gates and Jobs, there are a pile of failures that were essentially the same as them, but their product did not catch on. It is not a matter of producing a "good" product, it is a matter of getting lucky enough to produce the right product at the right time and no one can accurately forecast what that is, making success with such ventures luck based. The more traditional route has far more success stories, where researchers leveraged patents achieved through research into a business venture (see nearly all semiconductor and integrated circuit manufacturers).
>>
>>7842347
So youre saying you havent achieved because you see no point in trying because you might fail?
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2