
Nurturing Genius - datashovel
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nurturing-genius/
======
dmit
Only tangentially related, but this article reminded me of Edward Kmett's
presentation from YOW! 2014:

[https://yow.eventer.com/yow-2014-1222/stop-treading-water-
le...](https://yow.eventer.com/yow-2014-1222/stop-treading-water-learning-to-
learn-by-edward-kmett-1750) (~40min)

(slides: [http://yowconference.com.au/slides/yow2014/Kmett-
StopTreadin...](http://yowconference.com.au/slides/yow2014/Kmett-
StopTreadingWater.pdf))

One of the topics he touched upon is Richard Feynman's approach to "being a
genius":

    
    
      You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems
      constantly present in your mind, although by and large
      they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or
      read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of
      your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once
      in a while there will be a hit, and people will say,
      “How did he do it? He must be a genius!”

~~~
marcosdumay
As time passes, free time gets rarer, problems get more complex, and it gets
harder and harder to keep many open problems on my mind.

What you quoted is probably a genius not aware what limitation is the
bottleneck for most people.

~~~
closed
Something that may be related is that the further you get in an area, the less
structured coaching available (through textbooks, academic advisors, etc..).
In this sense, a new problem pops up, which is learning to decompose complex
problems into simpler pieces. Something that is often done for people in the
early stages of learning (and I find super difficult without collaborating
with others).

------
newswriter99
The article buried in the middle what to do about the ones who fall through
the cracks.

Speaking from a Texas point of view, there's three big problems: 1) Focusing
on athletics. 2)Lack-luster public schools and of course the be-all end-all:
3) Crappy parents.

What are the people who were "gifted" but live a mediocre life supposed to do?
Be bitter and drink for 40-60 years?

~~~
tptacek
The notion that an identified aptitude for calculation, or written expression,
or memorization, or abstract symbol manipulation _entitles_ one to something
more than a "mediocre" life is worth challenging, for several reasons.

~~~
adamnemecek
We as a society would be better off if those people are provided with growth
opportunities.

~~~
tptacek
We'd generally be better off if everyone was given growth opportunities;
that's just a restatement of the idea of human capital.

~~~
adamnemecek
We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize
the ROI.

~~~
tptacek
Perhaps, but even in a utilitarian analysis it's worth challenging the idea
that our outcomes would be maximized by further advantaging people with the
skills we typically associate with "high IQ".

~~~
techbio
"In Europe and the U.S., support for research and educational programs for
gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more toward inclusion."

Not sure if utilitarian or humanitarian is the better metric, or if there is a
real choice. The article does not seem to address the downsides to high
prospect/low achievers.

~~~
tptacek
Clearly there is a choice, since there's an obvious deontological argument
against choosing a set of sparsely distributed human attributes as a basis for
privileging some people above others.

~~~
techbio
If it is so common in sports, why not in intellectual development?

As far as I can tell, we in the US have more resources devoted to creating
environments where equality is tested in only in material status, and to
transcend this fairly prescribed order is to risk ostracism.

------
datashovel
It is my (probably controversial) belief that humans can teach other humans
how to become geniuses. We just haven't figured out how to yet.

With one caveat: My guess is intervention probably has to start early.

~~~
paulpauper
I think it's more controversial to suggest the opposite: that mental ability
is innate

~~~
sAuronas
Mental ability is innate. I think his point was that is also plastic. Perhaps
even low IQ individuals can develop genius level ability on a specific topic
or function in life or even brought up to the IQ of someone capable of success
in grad school.

------
WhitneyLand
The results are really impressive. It's also comforting to see them dealing
with some of the subtleties that were intuitive but not always practiced. That
labeling people high and low can both be damaging. That putting children in
college could sometimes save them emotionally rather than cause problems. That
IQ tests are bullshit when used improperly and even the best tests are still
missing people who should be nurtured.

Other factors seem very important anecdotally, have these been dismissed or
just not fully studied yet?

1\. Socioeconomic background - they mention it's not as predictive, but how
sure are we Microsoft would exist if BG's/PA's parents were illiterate and
couldn't afford to give them access to computers?

2\. Mental health - Someone could be a 4th standard deviation genius yet be
debilitated by anxiety, depression, or some other condition.

3\. Occasionally mental "disability" can seemingly be related to success. So
many great scientists have been on the Autistic spectrum, or suffered from
severe OCD. Can the success of the person be separated from the disorder?
Could "cures" for Autism and OCD actually negatively affect scientific
progress? Or could their condition cause them to be incorrectly screened out?

4\. How do curiosity, motivation, and ambition affect success? Do high scoring
kids automatically have these traits or is it a separate variable?

~~~
jacobolus
> _how sure are we Microsoft would exist if BG 's/PA's parents were illiterate
> and couldn't afford to give them access to computers?_

We can be entirely sure it would not exist. This is not a hard prediction.

~~~
WhitneyLand
I think you're right. But I don't understand why they implied its predictive
ability is low.

------
gedy
The idea that people are blank slates as children and of equal capabilities
aside from their environment is so prominent in this country. Many people are
very dogmatic about this, so I wonder where this belief comes from? Religious
and/or Leftist political theory?

~~~
tptacek
Reluctance to accept the genetic mental superiority of specific "races" of
people isn't a leftist principle. The left has no proprietary claim on
egalitarianism.

~~~
kapitza
Wut? _searches mental database for any trace of right-wing egalitarians..._
You must be thinking of... Nietzsche? Definitely not Nietzsche. Maistre?
Mmm... no. Can't be Maistre. Bonald? Filmer? Okay, you win, I give up.

In case you're wondering how this plays out in practice:

[http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009academicf...](http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009academicfreedom.pdf)

~~~
tptacek
"Right-wing" means something different from "rightward on the right-left
spectrum". I too would have a hard time coming up with an example of a "right-
wing" egalitarian. Reihan Salam might be a decent example of a right-leaning
egalitarian.

~~~
kapitza
A: "Dogs have no proprietary claim on barking."

B: "Wolves don't bark. No other canid barks."

A: "My neighbor's wolf barks all the time. Drives me crazy."

B: "That might lead you to suspect that your neighbor's 'wolf' is actually a
wolf-dog. Or maybe just a husky? You should get out more, meet some actual
wolves..."

~~~
tptacek
I'm a little lost. Is your argument here that there's no such thing as an
egalitarian conservative?

~~~
kapitza
Depends on whether you're willing to call a wolf-dog a wolf.

East Coast coyotes are apparently full of dog DNA, as well as wolf DNA. So
maybe they bark, or even howl a bit. But I maintain that barking remains a dog
thing.

~~~
tptacek
I can't follow this any better than the last one. Can you state your claim in
plain language?

~~~
kapitza
Leftists won the last three big wars, so even most of today's "conservatives"
are more than a little hybridized. You won't find any independent clade of
wolves who bark for their own separate wolf reasons. Barking is a marker of
dogness, egalitarianism is a marker of leftness.

~~~
tptacek
What about people who support school choice, believe government should be
local, and are strongly pro-life, but who believe in equality of potential and
thus the need for equality of opportunity among all people? Lots of those
people exist.

(I'm not one of them).

~~~
kapitza
I think you're making the very common mistake of thinking about transmitted
traditions phenotypically, rather than genetically/cladistically. This
methodology leads you to wander around comparing birds to bats.

The question that enables rigorous analysis is always: "where did these ideas
come from?" Some people invent ideas on their own, but that's so rare it's
lost in the noise.

It's very, very unlikely that your hypothetical observer looked at the world
and concluded independently that all members of the species _Homo sapiens_
have equal potential.

First, this person would have to be thinking independently, which is very
rare. Second, there is no empirical evidence for this proposition -- or at
least, none has ever been brought to my attention. (Fortunately, equality of
potential is by no means the only reason to believe in equality of
opportunity.)

If I observe that someone is a Catholic, which is more likely: that he learned
his Catholicism from another Catholic? Or that he independently derived the
Trinity from empirical evidence?

Your hypothetical observer may have derived his or her opinions about school
choice and local government from personal observation. More likely, they came
from Rush Limbaugh. Their opinions on human biology are straight-up American
humanism, ie, leftism. (With nontrivial historical links to Christianity, but
that's a separate conversation.) So... a wolf-dog.

------
jessriedel
As an aside, think we should all be impressed that Scientific American
includes an "In Brief" summary of the article (aka an abstract aka tl;dr).
Reading on the internet will be substantially better once these are widely
adopted.

~~~
Jugurtha
Indeed, I was agreeably surprised as well. I like the "Bottom Line Up Front"
style.

Speaking of abstracts ...
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2832.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2832.pdf)

------
imranq
Personally I think the goal isnt to be called a "genius". That seems like a
trick for parties - like to show off ones intellect like a lion shows off his
roar at a zoo. Sometimes I feel we worship at the altar of genius way too
much.

I'd rather take smarts and apply them to have better relationships, discover
new and wonderful things, and build things i and other people find useful.

Being labeled as a genius seems like a huge drag.

------
marmaduke
I attended CTY three times but I definitely wasn't one of those "genius"es. I
was a goddamn stubborn nerd who wasnt smart enough not to give up. I remember
the fundamentals of comp Sci course finished with a short section on C and I
amused myself not implementing data structures as assigned but seeing what
sorts of segfaults lead to what pop up messages...

There were real smart people there. I mean they just took one look at a red
black tree and just got it. Not me I sweat all the way through that stuff.

------
coldtea
Enough with the geniuses cargo cult.

How about nurturing normal people collaborating, respecting the scientific
process, loving to discover new things, be curious, etc?

~~~
Jugurtha
I don't think it's cargo cult. We didn't have a program for skipping years in
my country.

My older siblings are much older and in STEM, which means I was informally
schooled by them and spoke three languages before going to school. I used to
read Science and Engineering magazines laying around as a child, then you get
to school and you're put with kids who are just learning how to actually read
the alphabet, and they're using pictures and scenes, and write big chunky
letters. They're learning addition and multiplication while you at home write
programs. Any idea how fucking miserable this could make anyone? I was excited
about disassembling programs as a teenager and couldn't wait to get to college
and study Engineering and meet teachers so I could avoid reinventing the
wheel, only to be disappointed (if you teach programming and a kid who just
turned 18 shows you programs he wrote in a bunch of languages including x86
assembly but you don't care: wake the fuck up and turn him to a colleague who
does actually care about this stuff). I'm sure a smarter kid would have
figured a way to end up at the right office at the right teacher, but I've
sampled many professors to loose faith.

I tried to go study abroad in a very respected college to save my soul because
I knew I wouldn't last in my college, received a response, then financing fell
through like a Damocles sword. I spent 9 years in college. I resented academia
where stupidity and cheating were more acceptable than absenteeism. If you
didn't show up and did well, you were a cheat; if you showed up and cheated,
you were okay. I was so used to proving I didn't cheat because the work was
"too good" to be of a student (and this started in 4th grade with my fucking
handwriting on a homework not being a child's handwriting. The teacher had
accused me and it was _my_ idea to write in front of her to disculpate me). I
resented incompetent fossilized professors with out of date knowledge who'd
just crush you for not following exactly their (factually wrong) exact way,
and you could do nothing about it because they've been friends for 30 years
with the dean or know the Minister or something. A system that reproached you
of doing a good job, where doing nice work had bad consequences and of course
it wasn't your work, just tell the truth. A system where it'd be so much
easier to be mediocre.

I hated every fucking day of school from the day I got in, to the day I got
out.

I'm all for increasing the average level of education, but "non-average" kids
shouldn't be "tied" to average kids. Many people talk about "osmosis" and what
the smart kids could bring when they're in class and these people don't really
get osmosis: It's not the average kids who end up smarter, it's the smart kids
who end up withering away. This may work for adults, but for kids? I think
it's hard.

The system judges outliers with the same mindset it judges the average.
They're just not the same. Special needs kids are not just on the left side of
the Gaussian.

EDIT - To put things in context: I grew up in the midst of a civil war that
made 200,000+ victims; son of a father with a job that made him a target;
belonging to an ethnicity that is the prime target, and survived a bunch of
explosions. Great childhood.

When I say education is the worst thing that's happened to me and that's left
the bitterest of tastes in my mouth, I hope I'm able to fully convey to which
extent it has traumatized me.

~~~
cryptarch
My experience is similar, but I didn't ever have any mentorship. I just
decided to stop going to university, because I've hated every minute of school
since I was 10 and have been having a very hard time staying motivated for the
studies' material in the face of useless teachers and a perverse all-consuming
focus on attendance and (group) homework. I didn't want to be stuck there for
at least another 2.5 years.

I feel like every bit of will to submit to education has been beaten out of
me, and I'm done grinding my teeth. Feeling my energy draining away day by
day. I was having symptoms similar to seasonal depression, except they didn't
match the seasons but the academic year. The safety net a diploma offers is
just. not. worth it.

.

It's a load off my mind and I'm feeling very good about my decision. It's been
a week, and I haven't found any good reasons to revert it. I'm getting my
website up and running again, setting up backups worthy of a professional and
practicing my coding. I've always been interested in the work people around me
do, and because of that (and my previous programming experience) I'm meeting
my first client right after the holiday.

It's not exactly what I want to do for the rest of my life, but I think it's a
great start (developing integration tests for an Angular-based EFQM/project
management tool on a fixed-price + costs basis), and I'm considering
subcontracting it to freelancers.

(Advice and comments are more than welcome. I'm 21 and HAVE to earn money for
the first time, I want to build products as an entrepeneur but plan to do
contracting to keep me afloat in the meantime. I'm located in the
Netherlands.)

~~~
3131s
No advice, but plenty of congratulations and encouragement. Staying in college
lead to some very unhealthy behaviors and decisions for me. The college I went
to was quite competitive -- I kept it up for six semesters and managed to make
the dean's list each time, and then crashed my last year and nearly didn't
graduate on time. I was also nearly expelled many times throughout, which was
incredibly stressful because my parents would've nearly disowned me if I blew
the 40K tuition that way.

Just a thought, but living in certain countries can be very cheap while you
build up your skills and pick up freelancing clients. If you want a totally
knew experience, it can be a great way to educate yourself while working only
part-time. Even teaching English abroad can be very lucrative and will afford
you a lot of free time to continue learning on your own.

------
mcguire
" _“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society,”
says Jonathan Wai, a psychologist at the Duke Talent Identification Program,
which collaborates with the Hopkins center. Wai combined data from 11
prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies, including SMPY, to
demonstrate the correlation between early cognitive ability and adult
achievement. “The kids who test in the top 1 percent tend to become our
eminent scientists and academics, our Fortune 500 CEOs, and federal judges,
senators and billionaires,” he says._ "

I'm telling you, the Chinese were onto something with the imperial
examinations.

What we do is set up a test focusing on IQ and aptitude taken at, say 10
years. Based on that, we segregate everyone into castes; say, manual laborers,
blue collar workers, white collar workers, and professionals. Then we focus
subsequent instruction for the particular caste: professionals and white
collars get pre-college material, blue collars get trade schools and the rest
get baby-sat to keep them out of trouble. Further tests can provide finer
gradations, particularly important for the higher castes, to identify that 1%
that will become the leaders. Those are given all the advantages they need to
reach their potential without having resources sapped by sheer wastage.

Careers and such are determined properly, by aptitude and intelligence, and
not by stupid crap like which class the hot girl is taking.

The system has a number of other advantages: we can ditch the goofy democracy
for everyone thing, since the majority aren't going to have valid opinions
anyway. The result is less stress and more happiness for everyone.

[Edit] It just occurred to me that Plato would probably think that this is his
_Republic._ Except that we could make this actually work.

~~~
nitrogen
Since there seems to be a lot of variation in the developmental pace of
different individuals, it seems that a program such as this would need
multiple tests, and a way to detect students who were put in the wrong track.
Even then, you can expect significant opposition to such a program in any
established society.

Unfortunately, this kind of caste system already exists as a _de facto_ result
of socioeconomic background, and I think it would be better to acknowledge and
counteract the effects of background, than to make an explicit division based
on early age testing.

