>tfw using google search analytics to ensure your references

Obscure references have their uses to be honest. The more disconnected your reference is from pop culture, the more likely you are to be able to avoid the reader projecting their own connotations onto it, and instead use it more exclusively for whatever thesis you're pushing.

>>8809783

IDGAF about the pretense of this thread's subject, but people pick their OP images for a reason, even if they don't fully realize it as they do so.

Anyway, if anyone has the least interest, I've just dumped Kaczynski's (almost) complete professional mathematical output on /sci/. No one there has given a shit, and it's even less likely that anyone here will, but it's available.

>>8810082
>I've just dumped Kaczynski's (almost) complete professional mathematical output on /sci/

Would I be correct in understanding that Kaczynski's publishing articles in top academic journals in his 20s was quite an achievement?

>>8810107

In the grand scheme of things? Yeah, sure.

In the /exact/, /specific/ circumstances of those various journals? Not so much. It happens with some regularity that if some undergrad or starting grad student has something very nice to offer and they make an effort to get published, this can happen in the mathematical community. The trick is to have enough drive to produce something novel and worthwhile, and shepherd it to publication.

The other thing to be aware of is that certain of the journals to which Kaczynski published are intended for relatively broad audiences of mathematicians, professors, undergrads, and everyone in between. So it's common that stuff which is at least comprehensible to undergrads, or designed exactly to entice them to Git Gud(!), is regularly published. The extent of my mathematical education is a lowly four-year degree in math, but even I can pretty quickly make sense of Kaczynski's early paper about "Wedderburn's Theorem", which is an item in abstract algebra, and so since I've looked up and tracked down his mathematical bibliography as an amusement, I now see a little project of actually checking his two-page note, something which may take me a few days to review my education.

I think now, after having skimmed this stuff somewhat, that Kaczynski was a /very good/ mathematician, but not the /brilliant/ mathematician that he is romantically made out to be in sensationalistic stories. The other thing about math is that it historically has been a young man's game, it just takes the right autist to come along and push things forward during his twenties/thirties.

>>8810107
>>8810164
I think the big deal with him was he went to college early and was a full professor by 25.

>>8810383
I don't know the nuances of academic hierarchy, but his wiki notes he was an assistant professor.

>>8810164
Thanks.

Is there a general consensus as to the causal connection, if any, between the weird experiments he underwent at Harvard (described here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/) and his subsequent social isolation and program of terrorism?

>>8810492

The general consensus is that when people abuse you and fuck with you, this has negative outcomes. Kaczynski did seem to exhibit contempt for psychology in general, per the wiki and the below, presumably as a consequence of that traumatic experience. It's a meme-program, but the NPR program Radio Lab aired a segment dealing with these exact issues, about how Kaczynski was the subject of an abusive test program in psychology.

Kaczynski also had a poor time figuring out how to teach at such a young age (again per wiki), and this seems to have contributed to his problems.