Discuss the patent office era But they reward a good comformist with an MA in the physics department over and Einstein who is Jewish Two things get glued together there that history keeps apart.Conformism vs originality. Universities do often prefer the smooth student with the right advisor, clean letters, and no sharp elbows. Einstein was a bad fit for that type: he skipped lectures, irritated Weber, and did not look like a reliable assistant. That kind of filter really does promote the safer MA-shaped careerist over the difficult original. That critique stands without the ethnic story.The Jewish part, in Einstein’s actual early years. He was Jewish. Central European academia had real antisemitism, quotas, and social exclusion; that is not a myth. It is not, however, the main documented reason he was in the patent office in 1902–1908. The immediate facts are more mundane and ugly in a different way: a thin job market, a professor who would not back him, and no patron. He still got the PhD in 1905, published in the central journal, and had a professorship by 1909. The people who later tried to destroy him as a Jew were the Nazis after 1933, not the Zurich hiring committee of 1901 choosing “a good Christian MA.”So the slogan “they reward the conformist over Einstein because he is Jewish” mixes a fair complaint about professional cowardice with a later, much more lethal politics. Early-career Einstein was blocked as an awkward junior without a sponsor. Mid-career Einstein was driven out of Germany by racial law. Those are both real. They are not the same mechanism.If the point is that institutions like obedient pedigree more than raw insight, yes. If the point is that the physics department’s default setting is “anyone but a Jew,” that is a different claim, true of some times and places (Imperial and Nazi Germany, some closed faculties) and not a good description of how 1905 actually entered the literature.

No comments:

Post a Comment

REALITY CHECK: Medical sales.. Its what an elixir (Snake Oil) was in the middle ages, it's basically the same thing Same human move. Different wrapper.Medieval and early-modern elixirs promised long life, restored vigor, and a fix for whatever terror was in the air—plague, melancholy, impotence, “bad blood.” The pitch was authority (a learned name, a rare ingredient, a secret process) plus fear plus hope. You paid before the body voted.What is the same now A vague enemy (toxins, inflammation, “food noise,” aging, a syndrome with a new acronym). A bottle, shot, powder, or protocol that claims to interrupt it. Testimonials instead of a hard endpoint. A priestly class: then apothecaries and court physicians; now influencers, longevity clinics, and “studies show” slides. The customer’s job is belief and repurchase. What is not the same Some of what sits on the same shelf as elixir talk is real: vaccines, insulin, statins, GLP-1s with trial data. Regulation exists (uneven, slow, better than a 14th-century fair). Chemistry is not astrology. You can still get a vitamin that does nothing next to a drug that does something, in the same Instagram grid. That mix is what makes the analogy feel true and sloppy at once.The durable part People would rather buy a story that says “this is the missing key” than live with “you are aging, tradeoffs exist, no powder cancels that.” Elixirs never died. They learned checkout and clinical language.So: yes, the genre is the same. No, that does not make every modern treatment a medieval potion. The skill is telling the two apart when the ad wants them indistinguishable.