This story is kind of sad. You'd think he would stick with Physics and help advance the species by building an engine to travel to the stars or solving the unified field theory. But instead he went into the most earth-bound profession imaginable.
It makes one think that innovation is less about raw IQ and more about curiosity and passion.
I think that's rather selfish. He's squandering his talents and the rest of humanity is worse-off because of it. There are a lot of problems in the world and they're not going to solve themselves. I think exceptional people have a duty to use their talents to aid humanity.
I don't mean that everyone with an IQ >120 should drop what they're doing an join OXFAM. The greatest help is usually done through research. Also, people aren't robots with infinite motivation. They have to be interested in their work to perform well. That said, he can probably find something he's interested in that also benefits others.
I think that's an unbelievable remark! Nobody asks in advance to be born intelligent. Can you think of any other trait one could be born with which you would say bestows someone with a duty to lead their life in a certain way? I sure can't.
What's next? Millions upon millions of people have obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees in field X, and gone on to a career in field Y. Well, aren't they squandering all their hard-earned experience and knowledge in X? Were they duty-bound to pursue X instead? What's the difference?
I also think it's absolutely absurd to say someone's squandering their talents and not "aiding humanity" when they have a Ph.D. in physics, they're a civil engineer, and they've published ninety academic papers.
I guess duty was a poor word choice. Would you agree with this line of reasoning?: The world would be a better place if the most intelligent people worked to solve problems that cause the most harm to humanity. If an exceptionally intelligent person doesn't work on these problems, more people will die and/or suffer. This is bad, so exceptionally intelligent people should work on these problems even if they find more personal satisfaction in less important problems.
That's basically what I meant by "duty." Now to address the specific points in your post:
Nobody asks in advance to be born intelligent.
Correct. Currently life is very very unfair. Nobody asks to be born into poverty and ignorance either.
Can you think of any other trait one could be born with which you would say bestows someone with a duty to lead their life in a certain way?
These aren't genetic traits but they can be inherited: Wealth. Power, such as in a monarchy.
...aren't they squandering all their hard-earned experience and knowledge in X?
There are a couple of differences in your example. First, not all degrees are equally useful. A Ph.D. in Russian literature isn't going to be very useful in curing disease or engineering hardier crops. Second, education can't fully substitute for fluid intelligence.
I also think it's absolutely absurd to say someone's squandering their talents and not "aiding humanity" when they have a Ph.D. in physics, they're a civil engineer, and they've published ninety academic papers.
Compared to most people, yes, he has helped a lot. But if this guy really is the smartest person on the earth, he is wasting his potential. Bad things are happening -bad things will happen- that wouldn't have happened if he worked in biotech or physics or cognitive neuroscience.
Here's a silly but analogous situation: If Superman was a social worker, wouldn't you be frustrated that he wasn't doing superhero stuff? Sure, social worker Superman has helped more than most individuals, but he could do so much more.
The fact is that we all aren't born equal, but we all hurt; we get sick; we die. It's completely unfair. We need to fix it. The more great minds we have devoted to these problems, the sooner they'll be in the history books instead of the nightly news.
I would agree with your first paragraph if we were all strictly rational machines. But I think that the key to long-term progress and success is to give people the greatest degree of freedom possible, combined with incentives (i.e. salaries, grants, awards) toward things that help society. When you start stigmatizing or punishing people for choices that aren't even bad -- they just aren't "good enough" -- then there's no way that won't backfire and just instigate (rightful) resentment and anger.
I really would not be frustrated that Superman was not doing superhero stuff. It's very hard to herd someone smart or capable into doing something they don't genuinely want to do, and I doubt it's usually productive in the end.
I have to admit, I take this personally, because I may not be Superman, but I sit around writing little stories that nobody but me will ever read, reading books that do little practical good but to fill me with a sense of beauty and contentment; I shoot some pool, play some chess, and I work on software that exists primarily to satisfy my curiousity or to make me money. Most of it doesn't help anyone else very much, and I like it that way. I think I have the right to do whatever I please, as long as I take care of myself and my friends without doing harm to other folks on the planet. When a man comes up to me, as has happened, and talks about how I have a duty to make an impact on the world, I want to kick that man.
Maybe his gigantic IQ helped him to see the limits of his potential contribution to Physics. Related, innovative Civil Engineering is extremely important in densely urban societies like Korea.
I don't think it's sad at all; I find it kind of comforting. This dude's living the life he wants to lead. Good on him for making a decision that was at odds with the expectations everyone seemed to be layering on him.
The greatest physicists have been disgusted by society's use of their work. Maybe a modern genius would decide that a small amount of social change would be better than a vast amount of scientific.
"While I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president."
That scene couldn't have done a better job describing our last 10 years in the middle east if it had been written after it happened.
Your "programmer value quotient" is definitely not IQ. Knowledge and experience acts as IQ multiplier when tackling known class of problems.
I think there is a number of 1.2x programmers that you would prefer to hire instead of single 2.1x programmer. For all activities there's a number like that and it's pretty low.
Depends on the task. There are some tasks any number of lesser programmers won't be able to complete. There are conceptual levels to programming that come into play on certain tasks. Huge numbers of programmers that don't understand those concepts won't be able to solve the problems.
Science does not rely on geniuses and programming also shouldn't. There is simply too much to do to wait for genius to do it. If your problem is too hard you should rephrase it, break it into easier parts, limit domain to what is necessary and give up some constraints. That's what people do in science and that's what worked for humanity so far.
I'm not sure that works when it comes to major breakthroughs. I'm hardly an expert, but I'm not sure Einstien's work, for instance, could be replicated by a 100 physicists 'breaking it into easier parts.
Not mention you're contradicting Heinlein, and we all know that's never good.
Ever heard of Lorentz transformation? As for SR Lorentz gathered all the pieces together. Einstein "just" looked at them from different angle and what he saw was shocking.
Apart from that Eintein was not the most intelligent man that ever lived. He was smart enough man at the right point in history. Genius, but not thanks to his capacity but to his achievements.
I'm not sure what you mean by "contradicting Heinlein". The Starship Troopers Heinlein? ;-)
Maybe he is smart enough to have decided that a star drive or unifield field theory are not possible and decided to do something else that interests him more.
It makes one think that innovation is less about raw IQ and more about curiosity and passion.