

Einstein letters reveal a turmoil beyond science - known
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/11/einstein_letters_reveal_a_turmoil_beyond_science/

======
denglish
It must have been hard for him and his family to have their private lives
scrutinised by the world - it's not like he chose a profession likely to bring
him world fame!

------
psnajder
I'm in the middle of the Einstein bio by Isaacson, who uses many of the
documents referred to in this 2006 article to paint Einstein's private life as
it complimented his public works. (I certainly recommend the book to you all!)

One of Isaacson's main points is that it was not mere intellect that made
Einstein superior. Great scientists, such as Poincare, were working in the
same fields at the same time, but were conditioned within the realm of
university research to hold on strong to the classical beliefs of Newtonian
science. The four papers Einstein wrote in 1905 (written during his patent
office period while he was essentially blacklisted from a position at a
university) each had the benefit of his outsider voice. While his work in
college was above average, it did not translate into genius until Einstein had
the ability to generate, on his own, a complete theory of how he
intellectually envisioned the world. More important than Einstein's given
intellect was his particular perspective.

Anyways, I find judging intelligence by means of a test is absolutely
pointless; IQ, in particular, measures only a few ways that a person can be
intelligent.

In conclusion, as always: Genius is as genius does.

------
SingAlong
Any way to read more about this or the transcripts of those letters? Sounds
very interesting to me. Is the Hebrew Univ planning to put these online?

These letters will help know more about this great man and relate to him as a
human than just merely knowing him as a scientific genius.

If these details are out as a book it would surely break all records and would
become everyone's favourite.

Here's how he explained a radio:

 _A telegraph is like a long cat. You pull its tail in New York and it meows
in Los Angeles. It's the same with a radio. You send the signals from on place
and receive them at another, just that there is no long cat here._

------
peregrine
We will all study Einstein forever until so we can find out how to create
people like him.

~~~
andreyf
He was a very smart guy - but not much smarter a lot of people are today.

He was also a great marketer, mostly because he could explain his research to
the press in terms people could understand.

~~~
chollida1
> He was a very smart guy - but not much smarter a lot of people are today.

I had this long reply written but then I realized that there probably isn't a
quantitative way to prove your statement wrong.

Given that, I would appreciate it, if you could explain your statement. I
think most people would assume a man of his accomplishments would certainly be
more than "not much smarter" than alot of people today are.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_I think most people would assume a man of his accomplishments would certainly
be more than "not much smarter" than alot of people today are._

Einstein is commonly claimed to have had a +4 sigma g-strength (IQ of 160, on
typical scales). Even assuming a normal curve, rather than the more-popularly-
believed fat-tails curve, that would leave millions of people today with
higher g-strengths than Einstein had.

    
    
      .
    

Arthur Jensen writes:

Creativity _and_ genius _are unrelated to g except that a person's level of_ g
_acts as a threshold variable below which socially significant forms of
creativity are highly improbable. This_ g _threshold is probably at least one
standard deviation above the mean level of g in the general population.
Besides the traits that Galton though necessary for "eminence" (viz., high
ability, zeal, and persistence),_ genius _implies outstanding creativity as
well. Thouhj such exceptional creativity is conspicuously lacking in the vast
majority of people who have a high IQ, it is probably impossible to find any
creative geniuses with low IQ's. In other words, high ability is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for the emergence of socially siginificant
creativity. Genius itself should not be confused with merely high IQ, which is
what we generally mean by the term "gifted" (which also applies to special
talents such as music and art). True creativity involves more than just high
ability. It is still uncertain what this is, but the most interesting theory I
have seen spelled out in detail is Eysenck's. He hypothesizes that the
essential personality factor in creative genius is what he terms_ trait
psychoticism, _which has a genetic basis and is explainanble in part in terms
of brain chemistry and physiology._ (The g Factor. Ch14, The g Nexus.
pp577-578.)

This is Eysenck's book:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=eysenck+genius>

~~~
13ren
Great comment! Can persistent effort increase intelligence?

[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-
sm...](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids)

~~~
DabAsteroid
_Great comment!_

Thank you.

 _Can persistent effort increase intelligence?_

No. Why do you ask?

~~~
13ren
Are you being sarcastic? Have a look at the link provided if you are not.

 _EDIT_ oh, I see: you thought I was asking you a question, but my question
was an introduction to the linked article.

~~~
orib
The article confuses work ethic and intelligence and ability. I think that
although there's overlap, they're quite different things. And using grades as
an intelligence indicator is horribly flawed.

~~~
13ren
Do you know of evidence that intelligence is not affected by effort?

~~~
DabAsteroid
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=315938>

~~~
13ren
Those references don't seem to address my question about effort having an
effect on intelligence. My question isn't about the heritability of
intelligence, but whether effort (that is, training) can enhance one's
intelligence. Let me explain with an analogous question:

Does athletic training increase athletic ability? In terms of strength,
flexibility, aerobic fitness, speed, perception, assessment, reaction times,
specific skills, strategy?

Do believe that mental exercise has no effect whatsoever on mental ability?

That would be contrary to everyday experience, and studies showing that a lack
of stimulation (i.e. mental exercise) retards cognitive development. e.g. that
the visual system does not develop without stimulus; that the speech centers
do not develop unless exposed to speech within the window (closes at around
7yo).

 _EDIT_ interesting: "Breast feeding makes a huge difference, about 7 IQ
points." [http://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-
Inte...](http://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-
Intelligence/dp/0275961036)

~~~
DabAsteroid
_Those references don't seem to address my question about effort having an
effect on intelligence._

To paraphrase Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the Firefly class ship Serenity:
"Well -- they do." Try checking the subject index of The g Factor:

Abecedarian Project, 342-44, 500, 522

Head Start, 337-39

Milwaukee Project, 500

    
    
      .
    

_My question isn't about the heritability of intelligence_

Why would you think that a book called "The g Factor: The Science of Mental
Ability" would only be about heritability?

    
    
      .
    

_Do believe that mental exercise has no effect whatsoever on mental ability?_

Yes. Why do you ask?

    
    
      .
    

_studies [show] that a lack of stimulation ... retards cognitive development._

What studies are those? Would you consider being locked 24 hours, seven days a
week, in a dark attic with a deaf-mute mother, and no toys, to be adequate
stimulation for a developing child? The child rescued from that situation
turned out to have mentally-developed normally, including having a normal IQ.
Read all about it, and other cases of rescue from severe adversity, here:
[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Early+Experience+and+the+L...](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Early+Experience+and+the+Life+Path%22+attic)

    
    
      .
    

Jensen discusses the case of Isabelle (reported by Clarke and Clarke) on page
113 of the g Factor:

 _From birth to age six, Isabel [sic] was totally confined to a dim attic
room, where she lived alone with her deaf-mute mother who was her only social
contact. Except for food, shelter, and the presence of her mother, Isabel was
reared in what amounted to a totally deprived environment. There were no toys,
picture books, or gadgets of any kind for her to play with. When found by the
auothorities, at age six, Isabel was tested and found to have a mental age of
one year and seven months and an IQ of about 30, which is barely at the
imbecile level. In many ways she behaved like a very young child; she had no
speech and made only croaking sounds. When handed toys or other unfamiliar
objects, she would immediately put them in her mouth, as infants normally do.
Yet as soon as she was exposed to educational experiences, she acquired
speech, vocabulary, and syntax at an astonishing rate and gained six years of
tested mental age within just two years. By the age of eight, she had come up
to a mental age of eight, and her level of achievement in school was on a par
with her age-mates. ... She graduated from high school as an average student.

What all this means ... is that the neurological basis of information
processing continued developing autonomously throughout the six years of
Isabel's environmental deprivation, so that as soon as she was exposed to a
normal environment she was able to learn those things for which she was
developmentally "ready" at an extraordinarily fast rate, far beyond the rate
for typically reared children over the period of six years over which their
mental age normally increases from two to eight years. But the fast rate of
manifest mental development slowed down to an average rate at the point where
the level of mental development caught up with the level of neurological
development. Clearly, the rate of mental development during childhood ... is
largely based on the maturation of neural structures._

~~~
13ren
Thanks for your considered reply. I'll check those references, when I have
access to a copy of the book.

 _Why would you think that a book called "The g Factor: The Science of Mental
Ability" would only be about heritability?_

Because I read all the reviews on the amazon page, and that is all they talked
about. Not having a copy, that's the best I could do - and that is why I said
it "doesn't _seem_ to". You're putting words in my mouth.

Perhaps the greatest source of survival ability in human beings is the ability
to co-operate. General capability, in the sense of "g", of course contributes
not only to individual capability, but also to this ability to cooperate. It
seems though, that a preoccupation with "g" itself can become an instrument of
division between people (and peoples), and ironically this preoccupation
therefore reduces its possessor's survival ability.

.

 _Yes. Why do you ask?_

Because I find that my life is better, and I make a better contribution to the
people around me, when I am aware of the things that we do have influence
over, instead of the things we don't. Some aspects of mental ability seem to
fall into the first category. I asked you, because you seemed to know
something about it.

.

 _When found by the auothorities, at age six,_

I said "that the speech centers do not develop unless exposed to speech within
the window (closes at around _7yo_ )." There have been only few documented
cases of severely neglected children. In those cases where child was rescued
before age 7, they recover; but in those cases where the child was rescued
after ago 7, they did not recover. With so few cases (thankfully), it's hard
to be accurate - but the window seems to be about 7yo, from the data. This was
from Psych 101, and sorry I don't have references on hand - it was almost 20
years ago - but any first year text should have it. Note that the opposite
story of Isabelle ("neglected child/adult found with retarded mental
abilities; never recovers") will be much less reported in the mainstream press
and have a lower pagerank. Quite possibly, new data has been uncovered since
then (though hopefully not), which could well invalidate the above hypothesis
- but the particular case of Isabelle does not. Again, you have not taken into
account what I have written - in this case "closes at around 7yo".

Incidentally, Isabelle demonstrates that before stimulus was available, the
mental abilities were not present - only the potential for those abilities.
Without appropriate mental stimulation, our potential is not realized.

.

You seem pretty arrogant in your rhetorical questions, so I'm going to leave
you to it at this point. Thanks for the references, and good luck to you. :-)

~~~
DabAsteroid
_I'll check those references, when I have access to a copy of the book._

You have access to The g Factor right now, if you have web access, since the
entire text of The g Factor is online at Amazon.com (which allows viewing of
any page, up to some predetermined page limit).

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0275961036/ref=sib_dp_ptu#re...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0275961036/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-
link)

Searching for _milwaukee_ , returns hits for pp340-43, 348, 490, 500, 552.

Searching for _abecedarian_ , returns hits for pp335, 342-43, 349, 490, 500,
505, 552.

Seaching for _head start_ , returns hits for pp335, 337-40, 407, 495, 500.

Seaching for _stimulation_ , returns hits for pp155, 160, 251, 326, 340-42,
466, 487.

.

The entire text of The g Factor is also available online (in a format that
allows full text-select and copy) at Questia (<http://www.questia.com>), which
requires a pay-subscription that starts at $10/month for single collections
(for example, Psychology is one such collection option).

------
andreyf
Are the full versions of the letters available online?

------
cglee
Every time I read something like this, I'm reminded of the Freudian idea that
all we do in life is in pursuit of sexual ends.

~~~
Herring
It's misleading to phrase it like that.

------
known
You are a product of your environment. --Clement Stone

~~~
zandorg
So, the solution is to try and _change_ your environment.

