Jacob Barnett - Inspiring 14 Year Old

Pages: 123
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/jacob-barnett-autistic-14-year-old-nobel-prize_n_3254920.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DUerSdSgG0

I think this is just crazy. But what he says in the Ted video. You must Learn > Think > Create that is exactly what programming is, and teaches you. Now I understand why ever since I started programming Math has been so easy for me that I sleep every day in class(I've been suffering from Chronic Mononucleosis) and yet I take a quick glance at the teacher's work on the board ever so often and thinking for a bit I understand it, and back to sleep I go.

This kid is already doing research and getting his PhD in Astrophysics which is phenomenal.
It's certainly very impressive, but I find the comparisons to Einstein and how sure he is he'll disprove the theory of relativity pretty annoying, as well as the assumption that he'll get a Nobel prize just because he's hyperintelligent. Einstein is already an established scientist. This is just a kid with a great deal of potential (edit: although admittedly in 14 years he's already achieved much more than I have in 19, and more than I probably will in my lifetime). When he has established himself on his own merits, then the comparisons to earlier greats can begin. And I don't see how there's much space to "disprove" the theory of relativity, being that (1) there isn't a theory of relativity, there's a theory of special relativity and a theory of general relativity; and (2) if special and general relativity were wrong, certain things in technology, such as the GPS, wouldn't work (and yet they do). SR and GR might not be "correct" per se, but that's not how science works anyway. Scientific theories are approximations of the truth. All anyone can do with SR and GR now is make better approximations, not completely discard them. That's improving, not disproving, and that's really what science should be about. Anyone who goes into it with the attitude of "I'm going to prove all this established knowledge wrong" is most probably in it for the fame and not the understanding. The fact that he specifically says "I am going to disprove relativity" (according to the article at least) makes it seem as if instead of having the noble goal of analysing relativity to make sure it stands up, he has the ignoble one of specifically trying to make it wrong; it seems instead that he simply latched on to the biggest bully on the playground. In other words, it sounds like he's out to get a reputation and doesn't care about the science as an end in itself. Someone will surely say that he's only a child, but a 170 IQ at 14 probably translates to still above-average IQ at 30 (by which I mean he ought to be as intellectually mature now as an average person is at thirty, not that his intelligence will converge to average when he's thirty). On the other hand, if GR or SR does turn out to be wrong then it brings an opportunity for "new physics" which could translate to "new toys" for we technology types.
Last edited on
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
in his defense though, hes only 14. and like you said, hes only a kid. imo, what he is trying to do, is build a reputation for himself by disproving gr and sr. correct me if im wrong, but didnt einstein make himself known by proving it?. and hes not going to become average at 30. thats under the assumption that he just stops learning and understanding. we (or at the very least me) will have average intelligence at 30 because we werent doing what he was doing at 14
as well as the assumption that he'll get a Nobel prize just because he's hyperintelligent.


I wouldn't be surprised.

I've sort of lost all my respect for the Nobel prize since they gave it to Obama for being black.
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
and this will be the last thing i say on the matter, but there is no well defined recipe for success, you just have to do something amazing. i mean they arent going to say ok jacob... youve done this this and this, and now you have met all of the prerequisites to becoming famous. you have to do amazing things to be amazing
DTSCode wrote:
hes only 14. and like you said, hes only a kid

But, like I said, if he has a much larger intellectual capacity than almost anyone his age, and if maturity comes from intellectual development, then it follows that he should be much more mature than them, and so he should have a better, less self-centred disposition and attitude. Otherwise, it implies he has a self-centred personality rather than a lack of maturity.

what he is trying to do, is build a reputation for himself by disproving gr and sr

That's my problem. Science isn't (or shouldn't be) about fame and reputation, it should be about discovery and intellectual integrity. It seems like he picked SR and GR because Einstein is the best-known and one of the greatest physicists to date, and those two theories are among the widest known and best-established. If he's going to try and disprove them it should be because he thinks they're flawed, not because that's the quickest way to supersede Einstein. I think that's a very poor attitude to take to science. If you're just interested in fame, get into the pop music scene and leave science to those who see it as an end in itself.

Of course, I don't actually know this is his goal. It could very well be that he thinks there's a flaw in either of those theories and the mindless drones we call "the press" have falsely given me the wrong impression about him (actually that's very likely; news organisations have had a reputation for poor fact checking (when they do any at all) for as long as news organisations have been a thing).

and hes not going to become average at 30

Come on, I specifically said that's not what I meant:
I wrote:
by which I mean he ought to be as intellectually mature now as an average person is at thirty, not that his intelligence will converge to average when he's thirty


Disch wrote:
I've sort of lost all my respect for the Nobel prize since they gave it to Obama for being black.

The Nobel Peace Prize was always kind of a joke.
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
The Nobel Peace Prize was always kind of a joke.

wasnt nobel a comedian?

and sorry i misread that chris. i thought you meant that were all going to catch up with him at 30 magically, which doesnt make sense. my bad. and maturity doesnt define intelligence. it defines wisdom.

intelligence: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence
that has nothing to do with maturity, just what your brain can understand

wisdom: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wisdom
look at the first one especially

edit: wrote age instead of maturity
Last edited on
DTSCode wrote:
intelligence ... has nothing to do with age

It really does, though, unless you're telling me a child is as intelligent as an adult? I think a more intelligent person achieves greater maturity more quickly than a less one, and that's why he ought to be more mature than most people his age, and even quite a few older than himself. Yes, maturity also requires experience (as does intelligence), but as a post-graduate student, this kid already has close to as much experience as people ten years older than himself.
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
a child is as intelligent as an adult

never said that. intelligence is what you learn, can remember. im not mature, and im intelligent (no where near some of the people on this forum but i can hold my own with my peers). he might be post graduate, but how does that make him experienced? he has only had 14 years to live. you cant rush gaining experience. its not pokemon.

edit: spelling... dont know what is wrong with me this morning...
Last edited on
intelligence is what you learn, can remember.


Is that intelligence? Or is it education?

I'd argue that intelligence is a natural ability to learn quickly and be able to think critically and develop your own creative solution to problems. You can be uneducated but still be very intelligent. Likewise you can be very well educated and arguably unintelligent.

Wisdom I've always found to be parallel with life experience. IE it's "street smarts" and not "book smarts". It's theoretically possible for a 14 year old to become as wise as a post-grad student if he's been overloading on social stimuli... but I kind of doubt that's the case here given that he's autistic, which implies an awkwardness and avoidance to social activity (the one thing that gains you wisdom). But I obviously can't say for sure.



So is this kid educated? Clearly
Is he intelligent? Absolutely.
Is he wise beyond his years? I kind of doubt it.
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
i like dischs definition better than mine, so do you care if i steal it disch ;)? however my argument stays the same. just because he can learn fast and knows a lot doesnt make him make him more mature
'maturity' has multiple meanings.

You can be physically mature... which he clearly is not because he's only 14.
You can be emotionally mature... which he may not be because he's autistic.

But what most people mean when they say "mature" is socially mature. Which ties very closely to what I consider Wisdom.

So I'd agree with you, DTSCode. Intelligence does not necessarily imply maturity.




But we're all really making wild guesses. I mean the only thing we have to go on is an article and some short videos. Hardly enough to accurately gauge someone's character.
Isn't the question of what defines intelligence one of those age-old philosophy questions that will probably never be answered?
Disch wrote:
So I'd agree with you, DTSCode. Intelligence does not necessarily imply maturity.

I suppose not. I would expect a more intelligent person to be more mature (which I take to mean emotionally and socially mature as well as responsible - which I think is the crucial one you missed, Disch). Then again, given that he is autistic - although he seems to have a mild affliction - maybe it would be unfair to expect him to be more mature.
I really wish these "Look at this brilliant child" new reports would do a follow up when they are adults.

does anybody know of a child that had news stories done on how they will be the next *insert important individual* that actually came true?
I personally don't expect intelligent people to be mature. I'm around a lot of intelligent people and the more intelligent the more cocky, and the more immature.

There's not much of a correlation as far as I can tell.

There does seem to be a reasonable correlation with age, though. But it's not a direct relationship...
I feel a bit more stupid now.
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
There does seem to be a reasonable correlation with age, though. But it's not a direct relationship...
i agree, but i dont think it is based off age, just as vel said.
It's certainly very impressive, but I find the comparisons to Einstein and how sure he is he'll disprove the theory of relativity pretty annoying, as well as the assumption that he'll get a Nobel prize just because he's hyperintelligent. Einstein is already an established scientist.

I haven't seen anywhere that the kid thinks he is going to one day get a Nobel prize. This guy suggested it was possible.

“I’m impressed by his interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far,” Institute for Advanced Study Professor Scott Tremaine wrote in an email to the family. “The theory that he’s working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics.”

“Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize,” he added.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/#ixzz2bEtW0GCw

And I don't see how there's much space to "disprove" the theory of relativity, being that (1) there isn't a theory of relativity, there's a theory of special relativity and a theory of general relativity;

I haven't yet found the kids actual words, but it seams that the quote you're referencing is probably the words of the reporter.

I don't think he is trying to get famous by taking on Sr and GR. It seams as though he is actually on to something with his work, and don't doubt that his work is leading him to believe the claims he makes.

It seams like it's his mom who is pushing for the fame. That just makes her a normal mom, and it doesn't do him any harm to get some recognition either.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
And I don't see how there's much space to "disprove" the theory of relativity, being that (1) there isn't a theory of relativity, there's a theory of special relativity and a theory of general relativity;


He never said from what I read that he wanted to "disprove" SR and GR I believe he said he wanted to provide a expanded version of it. Though that is the reporters words not his I believe.

that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/Genius-work-12-year-old-studying-IUPUI?gcheck=1

Though what he is trying to disprove is the "Big Bang Theory".

Meanwhile, Jake is moving on to his next challenge: proving that the big-bang theory, the event some think led to the formation of the universe, is, well, wrong.

Wrong?

He explains.

"There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it's just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova," Jake said. "What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it's more dense."

OK . . . trying to follow you.

"So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

"So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it's really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon?"

He could go on and on.

And he did.

"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't gonna happen."

"Because of that," he continued, "that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We'd have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up."
Last edited on
Pages: 123