How to Calculate the Value Added to Humanity by a Super Scientist: A Method

The method is the most difficult part of the game.

How many methods do we have for evaluating a company on the stock market? Tons. Why? Because there are a lot of stimuli in the game.

We can advance in solving a problem by creating the right stimuli.

Take startup evaluation, for example. What if, by default, founders tried to evaluate the value their company adds to humanity? There’s going to be a lot of bullshit, especially at the beginning. But the methods would certainly improve over time.

I’m not looking to create the method all by myself. Instead, I want to create the right stimuli in society so that tons of people contribute to designing the method.

Everyone—including children—could and should try to calculate it, because the math I use is very simple. Anyone with basic math knowledge can participate.

We can even hold evaluation competitions for children, such as an ‘Evaluation Olympics’.


This kind of information (evaluating a company from the perspective of its value to society) would move stock prices. It would stimulate all market players—day traders, speculators, and partisans of every kind, including politicians—to do the calculations.

Eventually, the quantity and quality of methods would improve. So, we can tap into that pool of ideas and methods and see what we can use.

**Next idea:** Find a figure in science similar to Max Planck. It could bring good and fast results.

I think if Max Planck were in charge of deciding who should receive a prize, he would make much better decisions than the Nobel Prize committee.

The Nobel Prize was designed as an annual award. But we don’t have super discoveries every year.

That design created too many wrong stimuli, leading to wrong decisions. The Nobel Prize committee isn’t stupid or bad, but the prize’s design was the major problem.

**Why is that design wrong?**

Because it’s based on wrong assumptions:
– All discoveries are pretty much equal. Super discoveries don’t exist. (Wrong.)
– We discover something groundbreaking every year. (Wrong again.)

The Breakthrough Prize has a similar design. Wrong design.

If we introduced a 25-year prize—even using the same methods as the Nobel Prize—it would be a game-changer. Anyone who starts a 25-year prize will be forced to work on the method.

It could be a “Super Nobel,” not $1 billion but, say, $50 million. That would be a big step in the right direction.

**Long story short:** I don’t have the method yet. But I know what the next steps are.