
How to Get to Genius - samrat
http://jamesthornton.com/blog/how-to-get-to-genius
======
apl

      > Thoughts are the neural activity in your brain, and they
      > get stored as physical objects -- the neural connections.
      > They get stronger as you think more about them and they 
      > can go away too – so we have a scientific explanation for 
      > the adage, “Use it or lose it.”
    

Why do people feel this constant urge to sprinkle their fluff posts with not-
even-semi-correct pop-neuroscience? He clearly doesn't know anything about
neural plasticity, so why cheapen everything by pretending?

~~~
espeed
That's pretty much a direct quote from MIT neuroscientist Sebastian Seung's
TED talk:

<http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html>

The idea that neural connections (synapses) grow stronger from learning is
well supported...

"synapses grow stronger when we're awake as we learn and adapt to an ever-
changing environment" ([http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-
tempers-growt...](http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-tempers-
growth-of-synapses/842))

"Most contemporary neuro-scientists agree that learning takes place at the
neural switch points – the synapses. Research has shown that experience can
change synapses: they can become either stronger or weaker; and this change
can persist for a lifetime. Changes in synaptic conduction are without doubt
the basis for learning and long-term memory"
([http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-
articles/expandin...](http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-
articles/expanding-the-neuro-in-nlp)).

"One area of change is the synapses, the connections between neurons, which
are altered as the brain receives stimuli. “What happens when you’re awake is
you produce an overall strengthening of synapses,” Dr. Tononi said. “That’s
good, because that’s how you learn.”

But that is unsustainable in the long run, because stronger synapses require
more energy and material, and there’s a limit to how much of both is
available. “It’s as if in the morning you start with a V-6 engine,” he said,
“and in the evening you find yourself idling, but you’re running a V-8.”
Stronger synapses are also bigger, but the brain cannot grow bigger or denser.
“If you strengthen synapses because you learn, soon you’d reach a point where
you can’t learn further,” he added.

So Dr. Tononi and a colleague, Chiara Cirelli, have hypothesized that during
sleep, the synapses weaken. The downscaling is across the board, so that the
synapses’ relative strength is maintained. Those that have been used (those
involved in learning) stay stronger than those that haven’t."

(<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obslee.html?_r=1>)

~~~
apl
Take a look at the passage I quoted.

He equates "thoughts" and "neural activity." That's either a vacuous statement
(because, assuming materialism, all mental activity is neural activity) or
embarrassingly oversimplified. Similar situation for the following two
sentences. I'm not disputing synaptic theories of memory/learning; they're
common sense these days. Moreover, I'm sure he's derived his presentation from
(hopefully sound) science.

But nothing is gained from faux-scientific, superficial neuro-bla. Nothing at
all. Reality is much more complicated: usage is but one mechanism by which
synaptic strength is modulated. There are several others. Nobody really
understands how learning works, or how "thoughts are stored" (whatever that is
supposed to mean). Sure, synaptic connections change after learning episodes.
But that tells us shit about how to become a genius, or why a (HIGH-LEVEL --
neuroscience has no clue how stuff like this works!) phenomenon like sudden
perspective shifts leads to breakthroughs.

So why cheapen solid pop-psychology with insufficient grasp of modern
neurobiology?

~~~
espeed
"How thoughts are stored" is the entire premise of Sebastian Seung's
(<http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html>) TED talk it was referencing -- "I Am
My Connectome".

The importance of perspective shifts isn't a new idea -- Alan Kay stresses the
same thing
([http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful_idea_abo...](http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful_idea_about_ideas.html)).

------
Synthetase
I'm not sure why this was front-paged. Twice.

I disagree with the premise that a mere mortal can spontaneously boot strap
him-self to a higher plane of thinking through a simple change in perspective.
Revolutionary breakthroughs are a product of obsession and hard work. Aha
moments are built on top of a lot of grinding. The Principia Mathematica
stands testimony to this.

This post could have been written in a much more terse manner. There is a very
low information density. We don't need wireframes and tangentially related TED
talks to understand this stuff. It feels pedantic at best.

~~~
espeed
It says it's takes "a lot of grinding":

"Developing these rare or unique perspectives usually takes a deliberate and
devoted focus on something. Einstein said, 'It's not that I'm so smart, it's
just that I stay with problems longer.' Malcolm Gladwell talks about the
10,000-hour rule. He says, 'Studies suggest that the key to success in any
field has nothing to do with talent. It's simply practice, 10,000 hours of it
— 20 hours a week for 10 years.'"

Think of it this way, if you were omniscient -- meaning you perceive
everything, you see everything from every angle -- you would have total
perspective. But we're not omniscient -- our perspectives are relatively
sparse, but the more associations/connections you make, the the more your
perspective grows and you start to see a "bigger picture".

You don't develop understanding by learning raw facts -- understanding comes
from relating to other things. It's the connections that matter.

~~~
Synthetase
I will concede that it covers it tangentially before the article starts veers
from psychology into questionable neurology.

However, the author of the article definitely comes from the camp which
mistakes the perspective shift as more important than the hard work. How? Let
me count the ways.

1.Sadly, this article succumbs to the myth that Einstein was bad at math.
Einstein had fully mastered integral calculus and differential equations by
the time he was 15 and achieved full marks for most of his high school
subjects. His huge amount of ability allowed him the critical perspective
shifts. The author mistakenly thinks dwarves have the vision of giants.

2.The section "Insights from Weak Association" slips into this solipsism with
gratuitous flair. I don't believe the "NeuroLeadership Journal" is peer
reviewed. However, according to the esteemed, Mark Beeman detecting weak
associations may help problem solve. How wonderfully useless. This precedes
which states how understanding the problem is "easy" after all.

3\. Perspective before focus. This is the title of the third section Sadly,
you will not get perspective if you do not focus. Being able to see
differently is a product of sweating over it a million different ways. You
have it backwards. Tight mental frameworks are the product of focus. Thinking
about how you can revolutionize the field before studying it is premature
optimization.

I believe that I am exceedingly clear both in my arguments and my opinion of
the blog post.

~~~
espeed
1\. It doesn't say Einstein was bad at math, it says his math skills aren't
the reason he is considered a genius.

2\. The Google TechTalk it references explains "insights from weak
associations" in more detail: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M>

3\. If you don't have perspective, how do you know the thing you're focused on
is of any importance? You can see practical examples of this everywhere:

"One of my favourite tuppences for engineers struggling to find a bug is
'breadth first not depth first'. This can be annoying for someone working
through complex technical details, because it implies that the solution is
actually much simpler if they only looked...I coined this saying because in
software matters I find that if we force ourselves to examine the top level
considerations first, before tunneling down into the detail of a particular
line of inquiry, we can save enormous time"
([http://ria101.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/hbase-vs-cassandra-
wh...](http://ria101.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/hbase-vs-cassandra-why-we-
moved/)).

~~~
Synthetase
1."Einstein wasn't a genius because he was most skilled in math -- he wasn't"

Pretty ambiguous imho. And it blatantly plays upon that misconception. "Just"
sticking with a problem for a long is not an easy undertaking as the passage
makes it out to be.

2."David Rock is a thought leader for the brain-based approach to coaching.
David coined the term 'NeuroLeadership' and co-founded the NeuroLeadership
Institute, Journal and Summit. He is also the founder and CEO of Results
Coaching Systems,"

His resume speaks volumes.

3.I was working a matrix multiplication algorithm this weekend. I improved by
13x over the naive case. It ended up being one of the faster ones among my
peers. How? I ground it the fuck out. I read 4 papers. I coded for hours on
end and when I wasn't coding I was thinking hard about it. You cannot see the
vista if you deign not to climb the mountain.

~~~
espeed
But if you just started coding, before you read the papers, you wouldn't have
had as much success. You had perspective before you started. Take it to the
extreme -- what type of algorithm would a completely naive person have
produced?

Insight: \- the power of acute observation and deduction, penetration,
discernment, perception called intellection or noesis.

-an understanding of cause and effect based on identification of relationships and behaviors within a model, context, or scenario

(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight>)

How would you have been able to come up with a new algorithm without
understanding why it works? Perspective is understanding "why".

------
nicolasp
Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313755>

------
efields
Practice, practice, practice.

