[lisper]

Scott Aaronson is just one of the most awesome human beings ever. He is brilliant yet modest, and his writing is at once deeply enlightening and eminently accessible. The world would be a better place if more academics adopted him as a role model.

[paulpauper]

yeah i enjoy his blog as well

[cambalache]

Just to provide a counterpoint based on the scant evidence of his blog (post and comments). He is , of course , brilliant, and has a refreshing no-nonsense approach. Modest, he is not, not that is anything wrong with that, I would call modest for example Terence Tao a far more accomplished academic. This is something that should be a "law", the more accomplished a person is the most it can "afford" to be modest. So for example Einstein was more modest than say Feynman, and Edward Witten is way way more modest than your typical string theorist.

The other thing I dont like about Aaronson is his weird fetish with STEM people , he seems to think scientists and technologists are somehow superior or more worthy than regular folk. I also dont agree with some of his opinions on the actions of the state of Israel, but I will avoid that, being this the Internet.

[jessriedel]

I've never known Scott to be anything but unfailingly modest, both in person and on his blog. What specifically are you referring to?

[lostlogin]

I had a look and the first thing I found was him calling for an academic boycott against New Zealand - presumably for NZs support of the UN resolution against Israel’s Palestinian settlements. This is an interesting approach to dealing with criticism.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=247

[edanm]

I think you're misunderstanding the post. It's a satire of similar such blog posts which are calling for the boycott of Israel. It's trying to (humorously) make the case that boycotting Israel makes about as much sense as boycotting New Zealand for their treatment of the native population, or likewise boycotting China over Tibet, etc, etc.

[loco5niner]

It's satire

[JadeNB]

> This is something that should be a "law", the more accomplished a person is the most it can "afford" to be modest. So for example Einstein was more modest than say Feynman, and Edward Witten is way way more modest than your typical string theorist.

Your examples seem different from your law. Your law says that a more accomplished person can afford to be more modest, whereas your examples suggest that a more accomplished person automatically is more modest. While it would be nice if there were some such causative effect, I think that your examples in evidence of one are very cherry picked (and speculative: do you really know whether or not Einstein was a modest person?).