On the contrary:

"Many generations of graduate students who might have been tempted to try to construct hidden-variables theories were beaten into submission by the claim that von Neumann, 1932, had proved that it could not be done. A few years later (see Jammer, 1974,p.273) Grete Hermann, 1935, pointed out a glaring deficiency in the argument, but she seems to have been entirely ignored. Everybody continued to cite the von Neumann proof. A third of a century passed before John Bell, 1966, rediscovered the fact that von Neumann's no-hidden-variables proof was based on an assumption that can only be described as silly." Mermin https://cqi.inf.usi.ch/qic/Mermin1993.pdf

No one is infallible, and this kind of mythical status has problems. Grete was dismissed, and Bell's paper only was admitted because the editor thought it was confirming Von Nuemman even. And even if von Neumman's proof wasn't as "silly" as Bell said, the fact that everyone else ran with it surely harmed quantum theory for a long while, reinforcing the Copenhagen side unjustifiably at the expense of others.

Interesting citation, I had heard of John Bell's theorem, which disproves local hidden variable theories. But I did not know that von Neumann had his own attempt at disproving these theories. Researching this a little further, I also found people arguing that von Neumanns arguments were misconstrued by Bell. https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0499 I wonder how Grete Hermann's arguments compare to the arguments from Bell and what the real truth is.

Ya I am not an expert to judge if Bell, Grete, and Mermin also misunderstood von Neumman, and I see a few papers argue that. But the larger physics community does seem to agree with Bell's take. I do find it a bit weird that paper is using an entire page of what von Neumman would have said in response.

> Let uber geniuses run the nation's courts, monetary policy, tax laws, environmental protection programs, and defense planning and acquisition.

You might want to read up on his political views in general and his role in the creation of the atomic bomb in particular. He wanted to drop the bomb on Kyoto (the historical cultural center of Japan) and actively supported a preventive nuclear strike against Russia.

What's the lesson here? High intelligence doesn't correlate with moral and ethical behavior.

EDIT: just noticed your user name...

> actively supported a preventive nuclear strike against Russia.

Well, even Bertrand Russell, who protested against war from WWI to the Vietnam War, advocated a preemptive nuclear strike against the USSR in 1954. The risk of nuclear war killing everyone, once the USSR had nukes, just seemed too great, I guess.

So Bertrand Russell wasn't always right, either. Fortunately, the actual politicians in charge were a bit more reasonable.

What if he was right and we live now in a world worse as a result?

What if he wasn’t right and we live now in a world better as a result?

For the curious, check this essay "Did Russell Advocate Preventive Atomic War against the USSR?": https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/russelljournal/article/download...

I wonder if their opinions would have changed if they had been aware of the possibility this would result in nuclear winter.

You are assuming the point you are trying to prove: that von Neumann was unjustified in advocating for these things. Maybe he was just smarter than you (and me) and just had a really good argument for believing those things, given the state of the world at the time and his various priors.

Also, humans have created thousands of different and highly contradictory systems of morality over the past several thousand years. You would probably be better off not believing that you have discovered the Correct Theory of Morality.

At least in hindsight I can say with confidence that John von Neumann was wrong in this matter. Or do you really think things could have turned out better if the US had began a nuclear war?

It is one thing to say that in hindsight he held a wrong belief, and another thing entirely (especially without knowing his exact arguments and priors) to say that he held a wrong belief at the time and was not only wrong, but also therefore morally defective.

I would actually argue for the latter. Even if he might have had valid geopolitical reasons to advocate a nuclear strike (althought I highly doubt it), it would have been morally wrong nevertheless. In my opinion, there is never an ethical justification for the usage of atomic weapons. In fact, I firmly believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ethically wrong as well, but I know that other people have a different opinion on this matter.

It is very difficult to conceive of Japan having turned out any better if Kyoto had been destroyed.

I agree, but I think there are many ways of arguing that the destruction of Kyoto was justified at the time that do not involve arguing that it would make Japan better off. And like I said, there is more than one theory of morality :)

Although von Neumann was certainly a genius who happened to be in the right place at the right time, he's also an example of how groups of people can create a culture seemingly much more important than the effect of one outstanding individual. Lipót Fejér led a school of analysis at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. He ran a seminar, was the centre of a large group of young mathematicians who worked together and was enormously influential.

Hungary has a disproportionate number of the world class mathematicians of the 20th century. The numbers are even more extreme when you consider that those mathematicians are all from Budapest, all from Eötvös, and the vast majority of them Fejér's supervisees. It's totally plausible that Fejér created an environment where people who might otherwise have been middling mathematicians, decent engineers, or never have found their niche, were transformed, by collaboration and inspiration, into the likes of von Neumann, Erdős, Pólya.

Even today the Eötvös school of analysis and combinatorics is a significant powerhouse, with most members direct mathematical descendants from Fejér. And there are other branches such as Cambridge combinatorialists where the influence of Fejér's students and grand-students has been key in the formation of world class mathematicians.

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould

I've always been a bit suspicious of this idea of unrealized potential. You can take anyone and put them in the perfect situation with motivation and there's a good chance they'll succeed. Just as much as a poor child could have the potential to present revolutionary ideas as Einstein did, how many people working in adtech for example could have become revolutionary mathematicians if they put their effort and focus into it? You can apply it to literally anything

> that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.

Equal potential maybe. But it's nonsense to equate potential with talent. Talent is observed based on demonstrable execution.

A pithy quote is all that is.

Gould is known for placing ideology ahead of science, so it's refreshing that he admits as much.

Stephen F. Blinkhorn, a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, wrote that The Mismeasure of Man was "a masterpiece of propaganda" that selectively juxtaposed data to further a political agenda. [..] Jensen also criticized Gould for concentrating on long-disproven arguments (noting that 71% of the book's references preceded 1950), rather than addressing "anything currently regarded as important by scientists in the relevant fields"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

Gould wrote a controversial book attacking whole swathes of science done in the past. The existence of a senior lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire who has written a criticism of it doesn't seem that surprising and certainly doesn't seem sufficient evidence that we should disregard what he has to say.

> certainly doesn't seem sufficient evidence that we should disregard what he has to say.

No, we should disregard what he has to say because even his arguments against the century-old studies he attacks (while carefully avoiding modern work) were shown to be faulty. It's like (poorly) debunking phlogiston in the modern day, and expecting to be taken seriously.

Stephen F. Blinkhorn, is that you?

This is why it’s vital to identify genius at an early age (it’s mostly genetic, so the parents provide a big clue) and promote those with the ability regardless of their background or circumstances. Trying to lift the masses a few IQ points is largely a waste of time. Pluck the gifted and grow them. This is how our civilisation advances.

Interesting opinion Henry, what did you make of Robert S. McNamara back in the day?

> Let uber geniuses run the nation's courts, monetary policy, tax laws, environmental protection programs, and defense planning and acquisition

We literally already let elite school grads do this and where has it gotten us? 40 years of a yawning gap between the cosmopolitan dream-hoarder class and the rest of us fighting for scraps?

Intelligence only matters to a certain point for good administrators. Morality, courage, and, above all, self-restraint are just as important. These are the people capable of changing the rules in a way that benefits others even if it means a slight drop in personal wealth, power, or prestige. Often we seem to pick those who are constitutionally incapable of doing that, much to our detriment. (One big reason is that egoists can be wealthy, and wealth can manufacture consent, but that's a discussion for another time.)

George Washington could have been a King, and declined. Whatever other skeletons he had in his closet, that decision puts him very high in my book, and is a fantastic example of our American value of both innovation and civic-minded self-restraint.

>civic-minded self-restraint.

Such a well know American characteristic you needed a 22nd amendment.

That we have strayed from the virtue of self-restraint is beyond all doubt, root and vine. Our consumerist, ignorant population and our egoist, shameless leadership proves it. That doesn't mean its not a virtue that we once cared deeply about, and or that it wasn't definitional. And it doesn't mean we won't start caring about it again. I'd like to think that its in our DNA, just recessive right now.

The elite schools are populated by smart people who are well on their way to mastering the rules of the game, like their parents did (speaking broadly), but in general they aren't interested at all in changing the rules for the betterment of the broader society. I'm generalizing, but it's basically true. (There may be some idealistic instinct in college; but that quickly evaporates when the hard choices must be made that impact your families income and safety within society.)

How many lawyers build a successful career on mastering the corrupt rules vs how many build a career speaking truth to power and calling out the corruption? Reforming a corrupt system, succeed or fail, will destroy you and everything you love, and these days you won't even get the paltry victory of public esteem. It's worse: half of our public will take the system's side, insofar as they even know about it, because the system can afford great PR and produces endless distraction.)

Value != trait

If anything a value is something honored because the breech is more common, valued in part due to scarcity.

You mean elite schools with legacy admissions and affirmative action policies? Yeah, it lead the US to a yawning gap. Make college funding conditional on transparent admission based on standardized testing and things will get better.

Von Neumann had a uniquely sharp mind. His daughter was very successful and seemingly above average intelligence, but it's not clear that she had his same potential. I do think it's too bad that the brightest minds don't tend to have a lot of offspring.

It is called "regression towards the mean" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean). If someone is at a particular extreme, and the trait is hereditary in less than 100% (biologically or cultural), it is likely that their offsprings will be less extreme.

On the contrary - I find it sad that more intelligent and more accomplished people have fewer offsprings on average than others. While the process is not surprising socially, either there is no hereditary factors in intellectual abilities at all (which does not hold water), or step by step, we decline. Let's hope that technological augments to our mental capabilities develop faster than the biological process.

Once I compared the trajectory to "Idiocracy" (from 2006). Yet, a friend said it is an optimistic movie - since they still choose the smartest person as their president.

twice in a row really, I'd say Camacho was as smart as Joe - he just didn't come from a society that knew to use water for irrigating crops.

Aside from the other issues mentioned by commenters i want to add that this perspective leaves out the whole nature vs nurture debate - so those clones would not automatically become geniuses.

You could essentially just give a bunch of kids a phenomenal education and end up with a similiar, if not better result due to diversification of talents.

This is mostly what Plato advocated in The Republic, it inspired quite a few policies over the last few centuries.

The result is not as good as you might expect, this philosophy leads to aristocracy, not the most efficient form of government, by a long shot.