I watched one of his videos explaining the path integral. It was definitely all correct, and the way he presented it convinces me that he wasn’t just repeating something he had memorised from a text book. He was presenting it informally and in his own words. He even had a way of motivating the path integral hat I hadn’t seen before. So I’d say that he genuinely does have a deep understanding.
Watched the path integral videos as well. The procedure he follows is pretty much straight out of e.g. Altland and Simons. But you can see he knows what the procedure does.
My first thought after Oscar’s reply was: “Well, just because Oscar didn’t see it before, that doesn’t prove it’s not copied from some book.”
Then I was ashamed: “Oh, this is a textbook example of motivated thinking. You ask experts to evaluate the claim you are not able to evaluate. If someone told you the kid is fake, you wouldn’t doubt it for a second. But when an expert tells you the kid is genuine, you just find a way to ignore the evidence.”
Next iteration: “Well, I definitely should increase my probability that the kid really is genius. However, it is not completely unlikely that an autistic kid who spends almost literally all his life reading scientific books could find and remember a book an expert haven’t heard about. So I should update, but it’s probably okay to update just a little, and wait for more reports.”
Now I feel more sane, thank you!
Although, on the second thought, I should have considered not just the probability that the kid read a book Oscar doesn’t know about… but also the probability that this would happen to be the first video Oscar randomly chooses to watch. And that is much smaller.
So, at this moment my belief is… well, pretty much what pragmatist wrote: “He knows what he is talking about (which is still only a weak evidence for deep insights).”
Also, I should update that not everything I find in a discussion of out local Mensa is necessarily bullshit.
I watched one of his videos explaining the path integral. It was definitely all correct, and the way he presented it convinces me that he wasn’t just repeating something he had memorised from a text book. He was presenting it informally and in his own words. He even had a way of motivating the path integral hat I hadn’t seen before. So I’d say that he genuinely does have a deep understanding.
Watched the path integral videos as well. The procedure he follows is pretty much straight out of e.g. Altland and Simons. But you can see he knows what the procedure does.
Thanks for saying this!
My first thought after Oscar’s reply was: “Well, just because Oscar didn’t see it before, that doesn’t prove it’s not copied from some book.”
Then I was ashamed: “Oh, this is a textbook example of motivated thinking. You ask experts to evaluate the claim you are not able to evaluate. If someone told you the kid is fake, you wouldn’t doubt it for a second. But when an expert tells you the kid is genuine, you just find a way to ignore the evidence.”
Next iteration: “Well, I definitely should increase my probability that the kid really is genius. However, it is not completely unlikely that an autistic kid who spends almost literally all his life reading scientific books could find and remember a book an expert haven’t heard about. So I should update, but it’s probably okay to update just a little, and wait for more reports.”
Now I feel more sane, thank you!
Although, on the second thought, I should have considered not just the probability that the kid read a book Oscar doesn’t know about… but also the probability that this would happen to be the first video Oscar randomly chooses to watch. And that is much smaller.
So, at this moment my belief is… well, pretty much what pragmatist wrote: “He knows what he is talking about (which is still only a weak evidence for deep insights).”
Also, I should update that not everything I find in a discussion of out local Mensa is necessarily bullshit.