Interesting tacks you found -

alas, what we seem to lack thus far is a Genius of Mensuration ;^>

One of Feynman's lovable quirks was his ability to communicate with us ordinary plebs - all of his 'popular' books were.. well, Popular.. and about as far from quantum chromodynamics as the sex life of a Chess Master / a Feynman diagram?

In reading his stuff, I think his ordinary-speech hints are as good as any we get from the likes of other time-tested Genii (Einstein's hints were so often of adage grade - not the lingua franca of plebs.)
One phrase he was fond of was, "the pleasure of finding things out".

I know this pleasure. It [alone!] accounts for any single topic about which I ever eventually felt some level of 'understanding' == "standing under". His oft-related story about the ball in his wagon + his father's inspired 'answer' to the Why? - surely gives the major clue to his subsequent activities.

He Liked to Find Things Out\ufffd!

I submit that (as with Ramanujan et alia) THIS == that there exists a 'thing' One Chooses to put one's fullest Attention --> On!
-- is the closest we are apt to get to the necessary ingredient for a budding-genius ever to er, flower.

Yes, all the business about training applies to that fanciful learning curve (though no 'motivational speaker' need apply; it's Built-In) -- but while that may affect the slope somewhat, the Desire must be present and constant. Perhaps genius is about sustained focus - said one blind man measuring the elephant.

Nobody knows how to inculcate Desire (except small-d, for tawdry things you can buy and amass / or someone Else's 'religion', if a one is unimaginitive) - certainly there is seen to be no transference of, what a committee determines to be Right-Desire: that sort of quest is ~ what people seek gurus, about. To find out if... they Desire 'Truth' enough to work really hard to approach it [??]

If the Principle, The lower cannot see the Higher applies - IMO we aren't going to discover how to incubate a genius ... however much logical analysis we plunge the subject into. Still, we do learn from these essays something about 'mensuration' and about, how few significant figures there are, at the end of such calculations -- once corrected for metaphorical-error e^{666 tan \ufffd}

Ah yesss - the IQ Test - why.. mine reached into Three Figures.

[link|http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/science.htm|Feynman's address, "What is Science" from 1966]:

When I was still pretty young--I don't know how old exactly--I had a ball in a wagon I was pulling, and I noticed something, so I ran up to my father to say that "When I pull the wagon, the ball runs to the back, and when I am running with the wagon and stop, the ball runs to the front. Why?"

How would you answer?

He said, "That, nobody knows." He said, "It's very general, though, it happens all the time to anything; anything that is moving tends to keep moving; anything standing still tries to maintain that condition. If you look close you will see the ball does not run to the back of the wagon where you start from standing still. It moves forward a bit too, but not as fast as the wagon. The back of the wagon catches up with the ball, which has trouble getting started moving. It's called inertia, that principle." I did run back to check, and sure enough, the ball didn't go backwards. He put the difference between what we know and what we call it very distinctly.

[...]

Feynman was a uber-master at explaining things. His little book, [link|http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/sr=8-1/qid=1161131126/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4461508-0509612?ie=UTF8|QED], is beautiful.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #270,600 by Ashton 10/17/06 8:13:48 PM Reply	Interesting tacks you found - alas, what we seem to lack thus far is a Genius of Mensuration ;^> One of Feynman's lovable quirks was his ability to communicate with us ordinary plebs - all of his 'popular' books were.. well, Popular.. and about as far from quantum chromodynamics as the sex life of a Chess Master / a Feynman diagram? In reading his stuff, I think his ordinary-speech hints are as good as any we get from the likes of other time-tested Genii (Einstein's hints were so often of adage grade - not the lingua franca of plebs.) One phrase he was fond of was, "the pleasure of finding things out". I know this pleasure. It [alone!] accounts for any single topic about which I ever eventually felt some level of 'understanding' == "standing under". His oft-related story about the ball in his wagon + his father's inspired 'answer' to the Why? - surely gives the major clue to his subsequent activities. He Liked to Find Things Out\ufffd! I submit that (as with Ramanujan et alia) THIS == that there exists a 'thing' One Chooses to put one's fullest Attention --> On! -- is the closest we are apt to get to the necessary ingredient for a budding-genius ever to er, flower. Yes, all the business about training applies to that fanciful learning curve (though no 'motivational speaker' need apply; it's Built-In) -- but while that may affect the slope somewhat, the Desire must be present and constant. Perhaps genius is about sustained focus - said one blind man measuring the elephant. Nobody knows how to inculcate Desire (except small-d, for tawdry things you can buy and amass / or someone Else's 'religion', if a one is unimaginitive) - certainly there is seen to be no transference of, what a committee determines to be Right-Desire: that sort of quest is ~ what people seek gurus, about. To find out if... they Desire 'Truth' enough to work really hard to approach it [??] If the Principle, The lower cannot see the Higher applies - IMO we aren't going to discover how to incubate a genius ... however much logical analysis we plunge the subject into. Still, we do learn from these essays something about 'mensuration' and about, how few significant figures there are, at the end of such calculations -- once corrected for metaphorical-error e^{666 tan \ufffd} Ah yesss - the IQ Test - why.. mine reached into Three Figures. What if.. 'genius' is an entirely metaphysical matter, eh? orthogonal to \ufffd orthogonality, perhaps? :-)
Post #270,603 by drewk 10/17/06 8:17:36 PM Reply	Ball, wagon and father's answer? === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #270,607 by Another Scott 10/17/06 8:28:06 PM Reply	GIYF. [link\|http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/science.htm\|Feynman's address, "What is Science" from 1966]: When I was still pretty young--I don't know how old exactly--I had a ball in a wagon I was pulling, and I noticed something, so I ran up to my father to say that "When I pull the wagon, the ball runs to the back, and when I am running with the wagon and stop, the ball runs to the front. Why?" How would you answer? He said, "That, nobody knows." He said, "It's very general, though, it happens all the time to anything; anything that is moving tends to keep moving; anything standing still tries to maintain that condition. If you look close you will see the ball does not run to the back of the wagon where you start from standing still. It moves forward a bit too, but not as fast as the wagon. The back of the wagon catches up with the ball, which has trouble getting started moving. It's called inertia, that principle." I did run back to check, and sure enough, the ball didn't go backwards. He put the difference between what we know and what we call it very distinctly. [...] Feynman was a uber-master at explaining things. His little book, [link\|http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/sr=8-1/qid=1161131126/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4461508-0509612?ie=UTF8\|QED], is beautiful. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!