- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
the old age question
Who is smarter between scoffield and heisenburg
,a philosohical question that has baffled mankind for generations
Even the chicken and the egg conundrum pales in comparison to this puzzle,a persistently perplexing problem
A quandary with far reaching implications for the descendants of Adam
Ever since these two geniuses fueled the flames of a more than a few imaginations
Friendships have been severed ,siamese twins divided ,even soul mates separated as loyal viewers pitch tent on opposing sides of this great divide
Oceans of Ink have been poured from the nibs of earths greatest scholars in an attempt to bring this debate to a conclusion
Well today I settle this
Scoffield is smarter,
But hey
don't just take my word for it,journey with me,see as i see and follow the logic and rationale of mr ree
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
Both scoffield and heisenburg synthesized various compounds throughout their adventures.
After all What says genius more than some guy mixing a bunch of random stuff then coming out with a corrosive or a poison ?
Sure both scoffield and heizenburg were impressive in their synthesis of various chemical compounds
Be it chemically pure crystal meth or various explosives and incendiaries .
But for scoffield this was a mark of genius,for heisenburg this was merely competency
Cmon ree...Why the double standard?
Well u have to remeber that heisenburg was a professional chemist.
Chemistry
That is what he had gone to school to study,he gets no genius marks for doing what he would be expected to do in his job
Think about a baker ..or cassava farmer..let's go with cassava farmer...think about a cassava farmer who stumbles on a very sick child needing urgent emergency brain surgery,imagine the cassava farmer performing the needed brain surgery and saving the childs life..is that genius..yes of course...there is no other explanation..its genius...give the man a medal,a Nobel prize..and 72 virgins...wow..bravo..well done cassava farmer.
Ok..now think of an actual neurosurgeon who has gone to medicine school for 8 years to learn neurosurgery ,if this neurosurgeon performs brain surgery on a patient,is he a genius?..not neccesarily,he might be a genius ,but he might just be an average guy doing his job,after all he did have to go to school to learn this,right?
Walter white was a professional chemist,he went to university to learn about chemistry.
If he is good at chemistry all that says about him is he was not sleeping in class
. On the other hand scoffield is an architect,when we see an architect performing feats of chemistry ,that...my freind.... is genius.
TOOLS OF the TRADE
Heisenburg never had troubles with tools
In the worst case scenarios he used to steal school equipment
in the best of times
he was running a state of the art german made lab,the best tools that money can buy
Contrast this with scoffield who at the best of Times could only use materials that were available over the counter from a grocery store
His materials were only ever gotten from the prisons hospital,the grocery store and once in a bathrooms medicine cabinet
,who is the genius,the person with ad hoc ,state of the art ,expensive ,specialized equipment
Or the person with
Cheap,Run of the mill,humdrum ,mundane ,off the counter ,unconventional tools.
Maybe an example will clear things up
If A man goes into the woods and kills a bear with an m4 carbine machine gun with an adjustable butt stock and a reflex scope( I don't know if there is such a thing,I am a philosopher not a ballistics expert)anyway...yeah..if He kills a grizzly bear with a machine gun ,Is he a genius ?well unless you have a very peculiar misunderstanding of the word genius..no,that feat does not lead a rational actor to conclude that the perpetrator is overflowing with holy geniusness.
Now What about a man who kills a tiger(or lion,or bear,who cares) using only a ten dollar note,a pair of glasses and a used condom
Assuming the both accomplish their tasks
Who is the genius? The person who accomplished their objectives using objects made specifically for the job or the person who accomplished their objectives using objects in ways that the objects manufacturer did not intend the objects to be used,
Yeah..I thought so too
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
In the military operations usually have rules of engagement .
these are rules clarifying
what measures will be unacceptable In the course of fulfilling the objectives
These rules are things like
:Are you allowed to attack targets ?
:If attacked are you allowed to retaliate?
:Are you allowed to attack even when if it might lead to civilian deaths ?
:Are you allowed to detain civilians?
Now obviously the more limitations you are given the harder the mission will be.and the harder the mission is,the smarter you will need to be to fulfill it.
In other words whoever fulfills the mission that had the most limitations must be the smarter guy.
Imagine a person with no limitations,working for people with no morals at all.
He doesn't need to be very smart to complete any objective,say to catch some terrorist in a marketplace.he could just bomb the whole market,infact he could just nuke the whole middle east,and make it home in time for dinner.
However
.a person with ethics and morals that did not permit civilian casualties would have to be considerably smarter to fulfill the same objective.
The reverse is true
Assuming being moral is good,and killing innocents is bad
Then ideally we should all aim to achieve all objectives without spilling any innocent blood.
However when we can find no way of achieving the objective without spilling the blood (because we are not smart enough) when we then resighn ourselves to kill
Simply put.The more moral and ethical limitations you have, the smarter you need to be ,and the dumber you are the more moral compromises you will have to make
Heisenburg had very few moral scruples ,he left a trail of death and destruction in his wake.
his rules of engagement were lax,and sometimes he seemed to operated under no rules at all
from killing prisoners to poisoning children.
Walter white even killed a guy wearing specs..for shame Walter white
Scoofield wouldnt even hit a guy wearing specs.
Heisenburg had a freedom that scofields morality would never permit.
And yet scofield still managed to complete his objectives leading us once more to the conclusion that scoffield is smarter.
THE COST OF INACTION
In soccer as in a battle it is always more easier to defend than to attack,
After the first one or two goals strategy will usually change with the winning team now concentrating on defence (and time wasting),as they should,
they gain no big advantages from attacking,and they risk to much by doing so when all they have to do is maintain the status quo and they will win.
Maintaining the status quo is easy,you can bring all ten of your players to surround your keeper.you can keep kicking the ball outside the pitch,you can even just stand with the ball in the middle of the pitch,because any time nothing is happening is time that brings you closer to victory. Time that nothing is happening is a bonus for u.the clock is ticking and u move closer to the win.inaction favors you,inaction is your ally,inaction is your friend,
but to your opponent inaction is an enemy ,ever grain that falls down the hour glass without anything happening moves him a second closer to his doom.
He cannot relax,he cannot stop to strategise,he cannot chill,he must equalize or lose .time is his enemy.inaction is his noose.
People who compare Walter white and scofield usually don't appreciate the very fundamental differences between their
Positions .
Walter white was winning from the start,inaction is his freind
Conversely Scofield was losing from the start.inaction is his enemy.
Let me explain
Walter starts of as a free innocent man,all he has to do is maintain the status quo .
He could get a little bit of cash then stop,stopping is an option,the police don't know about him,all he has to do is keep it that way.
Walter white could at any time decide that the heat is just too much,he could stop any time he wanted.he had bags of cash ,he could quit ,or pause or take a break .
All these are luxuries that are not shared by scoffield ,scoffield starts off as a convict,in prison trying to rescue a brother who's electrocution date has been set.
Any day that he decides to just rest,is a day he will never recover,doing nothing leads him closer to failure.inaction is untenable,it is too costly .he is a convict ,he is on the radar of the cops from the start,however he escapes ,losing the cops will be an active action.his status quo has the cops knowing him by default,inaction is his noose.
Whereas with Walter white the cops dont know him,a false step may result in the cops knowing him,but the default is a scenario where the police are unaware of him.so..doing nothing leaves him at worst exactly where he is ..stationery,and free
at best it actually helps him as it increases the chance the police will get bored and move on .
Scoffield is a convict under police scrutiny from the start ,to escape the cops he has to do something.Walter is a free man unknown to the police ,to escape the coos all he has to do is nothing
Doing something obviously takes more brain than doing nothing
Scoffield you win the prize ( free chase amante book,and 1million Zimbabwean dollars)
Who is smarter between scoffield and heisenburg
,a philosohical question that has baffled mankind for generations
Even the chicken and the egg conundrum pales in comparison to this puzzle,a persistently perplexing problem
A quandary with far reaching implications for the descendants of Adam
Ever since these two geniuses fueled the flames of a more than a few imaginations
Friendships have been severed ,siamese twins divided ,even soul mates separated as loyal viewers pitch tent on opposing sides of this great divide
Oceans of Ink have been poured from the nibs of earths greatest scholars in an attempt to bring this debate to a conclusion
Well today I settle this
Scoffield is smarter,
But hey
don't just take my word for it,journey with me,see as i see and follow the logic and rationale of mr ree
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
Both scoffield and heisenburg synthesized various compounds throughout their adventures.
After all What says genius more than some guy mixing a bunch of random stuff then coming out with a corrosive or a poison ?
Sure both scoffield and heizenburg were impressive in their synthesis of various chemical compounds
Be it chemically pure crystal meth or various explosives and incendiaries .
But for scoffield this was a mark of genius,for heisenburg this was merely competency
Cmon ree...Why the double standard?
Well u have to remeber that heisenburg was a professional chemist.
Chemistry
That is what he had gone to school to study,he gets no genius marks for doing what he would be expected to do in his job
Think about a baker ..or cassava farmer..let's go with cassava farmer...think about a cassava farmer who stumbles on a very sick child needing urgent emergency brain surgery,imagine the cassava farmer performing the needed brain surgery and saving the childs life..is that genius..yes of course...there is no other explanation..its genius...give the man a medal,a Nobel prize..and 72 virgins...wow..bravo..well done cassava farmer.
Ok..now think of an actual neurosurgeon who has gone to medicine school for 8 years to learn neurosurgery ,if this neurosurgeon performs brain surgery on a patient,is he a genius?..not neccesarily,he might be a genius ,but he might just be an average guy doing his job,after all he did have to go to school to learn this,right?
Walter white was a professional chemist,he went to university to learn about chemistry.
If he is good at chemistry all that says about him is he was not sleeping in class
. On the other hand scoffield is an architect,when we see an architect performing feats of chemistry ,that...my freind.... is genius.
TOOLS OF the TRADE
Heisenburg never had troubles with tools
In the worst case scenarios he used to steal school equipment
in the best of times
he was running a state of the art german made lab,the best tools that money can buy
Contrast this with scoffield who at the best of Times could only use materials that were available over the counter from a grocery store
His materials were only ever gotten from the prisons hospital,the grocery store and once in a bathrooms medicine cabinet
,who is the genius,the person with ad hoc ,state of the art ,expensive ,specialized equipment
Or the person with
Cheap,Run of the mill,humdrum ,mundane ,off the counter ,unconventional tools.
Maybe an example will clear things up
If A man goes into the woods and kills a bear with an m4 carbine machine gun with an adjustable butt stock and a reflex scope( I don't know if there is such a thing,I am a philosopher not a ballistics expert)anyway...yeah..if He kills a grizzly bear with a machine gun ,Is he a genius ?well unless you have a very peculiar misunderstanding of the word genius..no,that feat does not lead a rational actor to conclude that the perpetrator is overflowing with holy geniusness.
Now What about a man who kills a tiger(or lion,or bear,who cares) using only a ten dollar note,a pair of glasses and a used condom
Assuming the both accomplish their tasks
Who is the genius? The person who accomplished their objectives using objects made specifically for the job or the person who accomplished their objectives using objects in ways that the objects manufacturer did not intend the objects to be used,
Yeah..I thought so too
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
In the military operations usually have rules of engagement .
these are rules clarifying
what measures will be unacceptable In the course of fulfilling the objectives
These rules are things like
:Are you allowed to attack targets ?
:If attacked are you allowed to retaliate?
:Are you allowed to attack even when if it might lead to civilian deaths ?
:Are you allowed to detain civilians?
Now obviously the more limitations you are given the harder the mission will be.and the harder the mission is,the smarter you will need to be to fulfill it.
In other words whoever fulfills the mission that had the most limitations must be the smarter guy.
Imagine a person with no limitations,working for people with no morals at all.
He doesn't need to be very smart to complete any objective,say to catch some terrorist in a marketplace.he could just bomb the whole market,infact he could just nuke the whole middle east,and make it home in time for dinner.
However
.a person with ethics and morals that did not permit civilian casualties would have to be considerably smarter to fulfill the same objective.
The reverse is true
Assuming being moral is good,and killing innocents is bad
Then ideally we should all aim to achieve all objectives without spilling any innocent blood.
However when we can find no way of achieving the objective without spilling the blood (because we are not smart enough) when we then resighn ourselves to kill
Simply put.The more moral and ethical limitations you have, the smarter you need to be ,and the dumber you are the more moral compromises you will have to make
Heisenburg had very few moral scruples ,he left a trail of death and destruction in his wake.
his rules of engagement were lax,and sometimes he seemed to operated under no rules at all
from killing prisoners to poisoning children.
Walter white even killed a guy wearing specs..for shame Walter white
Scoofield wouldnt even hit a guy wearing specs.
Heisenburg had a freedom that scofields morality would never permit.
And yet scofield still managed to complete his objectives leading us once more to the conclusion that scoffield is smarter.
THE COST OF INACTION
In soccer as in a battle it is always more easier to defend than to attack,
After the first one or two goals strategy will usually change with the winning team now concentrating on defence (and time wasting),as they should,
they gain no big advantages from attacking,and they risk to much by doing so when all they have to do is maintain the status quo and they will win.
Maintaining the status quo is easy,you can bring all ten of your players to surround your keeper.you can keep kicking the ball outside the pitch,you can even just stand with the ball in the middle of the pitch,because any time nothing is happening is time that brings you closer to victory. Time that nothing is happening is a bonus for u.the clock is ticking and u move closer to the win.inaction favors you,inaction is your ally,inaction is your friend,
but to your opponent inaction is an enemy ,ever grain that falls down the hour glass without anything happening moves him a second closer to his doom.
He cannot relax,he cannot stop to strategise,he cannot chill,he must equalize or lose .time is his enemy.inaction is his noose.
People who compare Walter white and scofield usually don't appreciate the very fundamental differences between their
Positions .
Walter white was winning from the start,inaction is his freind
Conversely Scofield was losing from the start.inaction is his enemy.
Let me explain
Walter starts of as a free innocent man,all he has to do is maintain the status quo .
He could get a little bit of cash then stop,stopping is an option,the police don't know about him,all he has to do is keep it that way.
Walter white could at any time decide that the heat is just too much,he could stop any time he wanted.he had bags of cash ,he could quit ,or pause or take a break .
All these are luxuries that are not shared by scoffield ,scoffield starts off as a convict,in prison trying to rescue a brother who's electrocution date has been set.
Any day that he decides to just rest,is a day he will never recover,doing nothing leads him closer to failure.inaction is untenable,it is too costly .he is a convict ,he is on the radar of the cops from the start,however he escapes ,losing the cops will be an active action.his status quo has the cops knowing him by default,inaction is his noose.
Whereas with Walter white the cops dont know him,a false step may result in the cops knowing him,but the default is a scenario where the police are unaware of him.so..doing nothing leaves him at worst exactly where he is ..stationery,and free
at best it actually helps him as it increases the chance the police will get bored and move on .
Scoffield is a convict under police scrutiny from the start ,to escape the cops he has to do something.Walter is a free man unknown to the police ,to escape the coos all he has to do is nothing
Doing something obviously takes more brain than doing nothing
Scoffield you win the prize ( free chase amante book,and 1million Zimbabwean dollars)
