> When there is an effort to “elevate people of type X” you have to suspect that some large number of those “elevations” are fraudulent rewriting of history. I immediately ignore the whole lot.

A significant part of all credit in the world is assigned fraudulently, it is just a fact. It is because with credit comes prestige and wealth, etc. So humans generally seek it out and many lie about it.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, you're right--I've seen lots of social media memes that basically say stuff like, "Einstein was an idiot, it was his wife that did all the work!" when that's patently a false statement.

But I also know that a lot of that sort of thing DID happen. Women, marginalized groups, etc., were written out of history on a regular basis.

The problem is, the issue requires nuance and intellectually honest discussion. And that doesn't exist when you're trying to create the next biggest clickbait article or meme.

Agreed.

I'm not sure at what point it must have way overcorrected. Most if not every single thing I was taught in school that a lot members of this group did/invented turned out to be an exaggeration or outright lie, I came to find out later.

Which is a shame, because most of their stories are interesting in their own right to have been properly explained. Now, instead of lifting anyone up, we're doing some weird dance of fighting back and forth about who is lying(and usually, the answer is both sides).

> Most if not every single thing I was taught in school that a lot members of this group did/invented turned out to be an exaggeration or outright lie, I came to find out later.

I think this (unfortunately common) impression comes from a misunderstanding of how scientific work actually happens. No one is working independently in their own labs and doing all of the work without help from anyone else, ultimately culminating in a Eureka! All of this work is collaborative, and recognition of individuals who had a particularly compelling insight or experimental result in this collaborative process is not a dismissal or denigration of anyone else who may have contributed.

> Women, marginalized groups, etc., were written out of history on a regular basis.

Written out? Or just not written in? There's a big difference. Almost everyone isn't written into history. But nobody cares about the white men who aren't written in because the people who are were also white men.

It's quite likely the next Einstein will be a man. But that doesn't mean that being a man means you're likely to be the next Einstein.

The problem is we are all obsessed with finding the very best people in each category whether it be science, sports, arts etc. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, it's just what we're like. If you were going to read a memoir would you pick Einstein, or the janitor who cleaned his office?

It just so happens that many of these "top spots" will be occupied by men, for one reason or another. I can see that it sucks if there are no role models that you can relate to. It must seem like boys have all this potential and that's not fair. But 99% of them won't succeed, and that sucks too. The grass is always greener on the other side.

> It just so happens that many of these "top spots" will be occupied by men,

There’s no mystery. It is not a “just so happens.” It is misogyny that prevents women from being in these positions.

It’s writing like this that perpetuates this myth that a woman “probably” won’t be the next Einstein.

Come on... It's 2025. If this were true you don't think by now at least one woman would have published her work under a man's name just to prove a point?

It takes a certain type of brain to be an Einstein. That type of brain is extremely rare in any part of the population, but it's exceedingly rare for women. It's not better or worse, it's just different. It's like red paint or blue paint. You don't have to rank one higher than the other, but you clearly do. Look inside yourself and ask why. If you want to make a difference you'd find a way for everyone to feel great about themselves rather than assume malice.

> but it's exceedingly rare for women.

Completely false. You will never find evidence for this claim because it's a lie.

100 percent of the time when someone writes this lie, they're covering up for their own intellectual shortcomings. You're smart enough to realize that your mind doesn't measure up. But unfortunately, you're not smart enough to learn that you are the one holding back your own intellectual abilities.

With time, I hope you grow into a more serious person.

>It is misogyny that prevents women from being in these positions.

Malcolm, it's not 2010 anymore buddy. This isn't it. You're not even going to bait anyone with this shit nowadays.

> Written out? Or just not written in? There's a big difference. Almost everyone isn't written into history. But nobody cares about the white men who aren't written in because the people who are were also white men.

I mean, not too long ago there was a very popular movement online about celebrating white man Nikola Tesla, who was seen as not being given his fair place in history for his discoveries. People love a perceived underdog.

I'm very happy that this view is getting some broader attention. In the abstract, it's no different than it's always been: history is written by the victors. The particulars are going to be era-specific, as you've noted. _Any_ ideology is going to have its blind spots and its convenient lies.

I think knowingly or unknowingly this person just summed it up - there was an effort(last 2-3 centuries) to elevate people of just one type (let's say X) and a lot of those were just fraudulent and now the effort is to elevate these other types (rest of the types minus type X) and a lot of these might also be fraudulent. So I think deliberately elevating a type leads to some fraudulence. It doesn't mean we should judge the types but that we should be careful which we should be anyway.

This comment is not going to age well. This is same attitude that everyone has had since recorded history. And they are regularly proven wrong. By either intention or omission history is rarely balanced and accurate.

I imagine rather than it’ll age like a fine wine.

And the harder the DEI wackos try to ‘balance the scales’ the better it’ll age.