13 Comments

Just goes to show, you should never invest money in ventures that aren't backed by real value and tangible assets.

On an unrelated note, anyone want to take this priceless collection of Beanie Babies off my hands?

Expand full comment

Sir Isaac, victim of a sham? Astonishing.

Expand full comment

Yeah. Maybe not so astonishing after all, but I think folks conflate being smart in one area for being smart in all areas. That's a big mistake!

Expand full comment

Very engaging historical drop, thanks;

Expand full comment

Well, you made me think a lot with this. Sometimes, great thinkers simply trust logic, and the world, the way it works (especially finance, which always cheats), can screw up any logic. The problem with bright people (on Sir Newton's scale) is that they often have no defense against the cleverness of those who are less bright but more shrewd. Only my two pence, though.

Expand full comment

I think that's right. The notion of absolute intelligence is really silly when you come down to it, and even though I'm sure Newton had more calculating power than me, I am also sure I'd be way better at some things than him (and know way more about the way things work in the real world, so to speak).

Even the smartest person in one area is a complete dummy in another.

Expand full comment

Yes, sort of. I believe that absolute intelligence exists, but I also believe that it creates asymmetries in people who have it. Kind of like Nash in Howard's A Beautiful Mind. Well, it's a movie, but there's something true there. BTW, it's an high intriguing topic. Thanks a lot :-)

Expand full comment

Glad to have some good ideas to toss around!

I tend to agree. I guess what I was trying to say is that you can certainly allocate a ton of brilliance to, say, mathematics, but all that brain power you're directing over there is going to create deficiencies elsewhere, no matter how powerful your brain is. I'm not sure if that's the ONLY thing that happened to Nash, though- he had some other broken things going on inside there, but OTOH, maybe that's why he had such amazing insights.

TL;DR: this is complicated stuff!

Expand full comment

Yep! I totally agree.

Expand full comment

He and Leibniz created a new version of math, but they could not join it with the others. This is why Cauchy was important: he showed that the calculus flowed from algebra and his proof of the fundamental theory of Calculus. This was 150 years from calculus be so important that it was allowed even though it broke the cardinal rule set by Euclid: all of mathematics should be a whole from the same group of axioms.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2975545

Expand full comment

Stirling, have you considered writing about something like this? I think you could do a good job.

Expand full comment

I am writing about this. It is why I am writing a book on logical systems. in my latest post on what I am thinking...

Expand full comment

Do you mind sharing it here in the comments? Some of the readers here might enjoy checking that out.

Expand full comment