

How to be a genius - brl
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125691.300

======
fauigerzigerk
One thing that's missing from the article is that there isn't just one kind of
hard work. Some people work very hard and very inefficiently. They never
analyse how they do things and how they could do them better.

~~~
ptn
I too would have liked the article to mention that, it would be useful. But
it's probably out of it's scope, though.

~~~
maurycy
Old one, but pretty good about hard work's criterias:

[http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm)

------
NickSmith
You tend to find that 'hard work == discipline == genius' is the illusory
conclusion made by those on the outside looking in. When we are truly
inspired, in the 'flow' if you like, doesn't that feel like the easiest, most
natural state you have ever experienced?

Ptn nails it in his comment - "they left out the inner spark". Absolutely.
Genius is simply the release of the inner spark and that process is not
something that could be characterised by effort.

Here's an alternative perspective -
<http://www.life2point0.com/2007/02/learning_to_fly.html> and
<http://www.life2point0.com/2006/06/the_little_book.html>

~~~
shiro
"Genius is simply the release of the inner spark."

Good remark. I think you still need effort, but that's the kind of removing
obstacles between the spark and the outcome, rather than the kind of blindly
digging here and there hoping you'll find a gem. I guess that's the reason of
the importance of the mentor mentioned in the article.

And yes, it's simple, yet so difficult to achieve for even a slight bit of
ego, lazyness or even over-eagerness get in the way... (from my experience of
>20yrs of practicing instruments and acting; yet there's long way to go).

~~~
NickSmith
You are quite right Shiro.. it does take effort, but only as long as we
believe that it takes effort ;-)

The central thesis of 'The little book of Flow' I linked to above is that
those sublime moments when we get in touch with our inner spark, where
inspiration gushes, answers flow from us before the questions, and we have
all-on just keeping up... are simply the moments we, per chance, relax into
our true nature, our natural (though perhaps forgotten) state. Notice that
these moments invariably occur when we are happy and relaxed and the mind lets
slip it's incessant control over of our life.,, and we suddenly feel more
alive and connected to everything. If this is true (and it's not difficult to
test this for ourselves) then what preparation or effort or understanding
could be needed to know our own nature?

Of course, the ego doesn't want us to hear this - as our 'self-concept' it's
under threat as once our mind expands to a greater awareness of reality it's
impossible to shrink back again. So it's the nature of the ego (the human
condition if you like) to believe that we must strive, practice, seek answers.
But that doesn't make it either necessary or true.

At end of the day it can, if we wish, come down to a simple choice: - Shall I
be true the truth as I find it - 'the spark', or true to the latest idea about
what is still needed?

What I am long-windedly trying to say here Shiro, is that from my experience
the problem is not the 'obstacles between the spark and the outcome' but the
belief that there are obstacles between the spark and the outcome that need to
be overcome. Does that make sense?

~~~
shiro
Yeah that makes sense. Whether the obstacles are there or just a phamtom
created by our ego, my point is that the "effort" here is more like a round-
trip journey, which can be quite enjoyable even if you'll eventually come back
to the same place. Do we need that? I don't know, maybe not. Is it fun? I bet
it is.

~~~
NickSmith
And if it's fun then where's the effort?

I'm with you Shiro... I'll take fun any day.

~~~
shiro
My wife once asked me how I could practice the same piano piece over and over
and over, for hours, without being bored. It seemed to her that I was making a
great effort. To me, every time I play, I discover something new, about music,
about myself, about the instrument.... Even the least interesting basic
exercise piece like Hanon (which roughly corresponds to the sit-up or
squatting to build your body), if I concentrate on how every parts of my body
works to interact with the piano, it's an unlimited source of discovery. I
wish I'd known that when I was younger and taking lessons---I discover how to
enjoy practicing long after I stop taking lessons.

~~~
NickSmith
Shiro, you are definitely one of the lucky ones. Very few know what it is to
do something solely for the joy of doing the thing itself... and the great
paradox is that when that is our only motivation, the 'success' that we would
have wanted had we been goal (instead of process) orientated comes easy and
naturally.

This is how to let the inner spark shine -- allow whatever we choose to do to
be it's own reward with no preconditions or ulterior motives. What flows from
that is always perfect. And what's more, somehow serendipity starts kicking
in.

All great works are created from a sense of joy, not pain. If there is a
'secret' to genius, then surely this is it. Does this help answer your
question tyn?

~~~
tyn
Well, it's certainly inspiring, just a little remark to add: some things are
entertaining by nature (e.g. playing soccer) while for other things you need
to make an effort (oops, here it is again) to discover the joy in them (e.g.
for the procedure of building the right body to play better soccer). Most
people will certainly devote more time to the first category of activities
(what I've called entertaining by nature).

------
whacked_new
Ericsson's research is very informative, but it is fallacious to use it to
discount the role of genetics.

To illustrate, basic perception of quantity is an innate skill that develops
as the brain matures; it generally solidifies when a child reaches something
like 5-7 years of age (don't quote me; I'll dig sources if need be). Now when
a kid learns calculus at age 10, it is impossible to explain it simply by hard
work. And unlike the article, I would put Mozart into this category.

What is deducible from the research is simply that P( successful | no hard
work) = 0, but P( successful | work hard) > 0.

~~~
downer
Not to discount the role of genetics, but how many parents ever prepare their
children to learn Calculus at age 10 in the first place? If it were tried with
all children and only a few succeeded, the genetic argument would be stronger;
as it is, it is rarely tried but anecdotally it seems like when it IS tried,
it is successful. This may have more to do with children's incredible mental
elasticity than anything else.

And IMO calculus isn't really "hard"; e.g. the concept of infinity is no more
difficult to teach a child than an adult. Actually I'd say it's a lot _easier_
to learn it at 10 than at 18 anyway, just like a foreign language or musical
instrument or computer programming.

The limiting factor with children in my experience is adults. Adults abrogate
children's learning opportunities with regimented lessons that are merely
someone's mistaken concept of what is "appropriate" for an "average" child of
that "grade level", i.e. age.

"Readers"? Why not keep the shelf stocked with the best sci-fi, fantasy, and
non-fiction and let them read what they want? Math in particular is going to
undergo major changes because kids are going to grow up now with 3D worlds and
coordinate systems that they _play_ with. Kids are generally under-stimulated
intellectually with what they're interested in, and over-worked on things they
_don't_ have interest in. Our potential is so much more than what we are
permitted to grow into in these restrictive environments.

~~~
whacked_new
You points are valid, and I don't take a hard stance on this debate, but I
highly disagree with how it's called the "nature vs nuture debate," as if it's
one or the other.

Learning calculus at age 10 is no small feat; it's one of many examples there
are, but you are right, I can't say it can't be taught. However, research
evidence will say it's very difficult.

I don't remember the name of the experiment, but this is fairly well-tested,
as follows. Take n beads and lay them in a line in front of a 5-year-old. Take
the same number of beads and make another line, but space them apart wider.
Ask which line has more beads. Usually the kid will say the more widely-spaced
line has more. This is caused by an immature perception of quantity. After a
few years, this error "magically" disappears. Logically, if you don't
understand descrete quantities you won't be handling high-level math.

The other example is reading. Most kids begin recalling episodic memories from
age 3; reading starts later than that. Sho Yano was reading the New York Times
at age 2. He played Chopin from memory at 3, with no training at all (the
story goes, as his mother says, that she was in the kicthen and he just
climbed up on the chair and started playing). There is simply no case to be
made about it being a taught skill.

Again I'm not discounting the importance of rearing, but there are cases where
innate genius is the primary factor in skill development, and again, I believe
Mozart falls into the genius category. Beethoven, maybe the hard work
category.

~~~
jimbokun
I suspect that the researchers cited in the article might point out people who
demonstrated aptitude like Yano's and yet did not achieve as much as someone
who had less aptitude but worked harder. There is some baseline of innate
aptitude required for excellence, but among people surpassing that baseline
hard work is what distinguishes them; that is the hypothesis proffered in the
article.

As for Mozart, the point was that even he had to put in over 10 years of work
before producing his best work. But, because he started at 3 he got there at a
really early age.

~~~
whacked_new
That hypothesis is clear, and I agree with it. I am a fan of Ericcson's work,
but I disagree with certain examples that are often cited in articles like
these. There are many reasons, the first of which I mentioned above.

The rules of aptitude assessment are much different for children and adults;
the returns per year is not simply accumulative. First, the curve isn't
linear. Second, the curve looks different during different ages. Forgive me if
this is obvious, but the reporters never seem like they know. The ten years
from age 3 to 13 is a different ten years from age 23 to 33. If you learned a
language in the former interval, you'd be a native speaker; in the latter, no
matter how hard you work, you won't be. The "early" brain is a completely
different creature from the "late" brain (which is why I think youth education
is far more important than teen+ education). It is also early in life when
particular natural affinities develop. If there were two TigerWoods, let one
start golf at 2, trains until 18, and deprive them for 8 years. The other
starts at 10, trains until 26, and bring them together to compete after a
refresher for the early start, I would bet on the early starter.

------
ptn
I don't like the way the article presents hard work: "the very best rise
because they take great _pains_ to maximise that gift". Pain? That way, no
one's going to try. The part in which they say "that's a task not everyone's
up to" is particularly discouraging. So, informative as an article, lame as an
advice.

Also, I think that they left out the inner spark (curiosity in the case of
smart guys). What drives you to practise? It ain't discipline, or at least you
don't consider it like that. You are not forcing yourself to
pratise/read/study/train, you truly want to do it. Granted, you sometimes
trick yourself into doing it, that could be considered discipline, but not the
bulk of it.

~~~
hhm
I had read it somewhere before: it's known that genius is in the hard
discipline, but it's not known where the genius takes such a great motivation
to involve in that kind of discipline.

------
david927
This is an interesting topic and yet the author does it a disservice by
simplifying it. Mozart was prolific, it's true, but he could write a symphony
in one go. Literally, he would just sit down and write out a symphony. That's
not the hard work the author hints at. Then there are others, such as
Beethoven, who was great despite not producing many works. Melville wrote few
novels, but one was "Moby Dick". Even the work that was done was most likely a
labor of love, so that 99% perspiration most likely wasn't noticed by the one
sweating.

Further, I'm dismayed that the author attempts to dilute the intellectual
capacity as an ingredient in formulating "genius". Name a true genius and I
will name you someone who knew their field intimately. It's simply not the
only ingredient.

Instead, I would credit perspective. Alan Kay's "point of view". A genius has
a way of going down a path where no one else has ventured before, and does so
for personal motives. Most geniuses don't try to be geniuses, as much as chase
a star only seen by them.

When Beethoven found he was losing his hearing, he wrote a letter to his
brothers called the Heiligenstadt Testament, and said, "... but little more
and I would have put an end to my life - only art it was that withheld me, ah
it seemed impossible to leave the world until I had produced all that I felt
called upon me to produce"

~~~
augustus
I think the article is pretty accurate though. Mozart could create a symphony
in one go but the author does say that he started at age 3. His father
encouraged him and then Haydn was also his tutor.

The way I read the article is that intelligence is necessary but is not
sufficient in of itself.

~~~
david927
I think the article is silly. One, there's nothing close to a scientific
method used -- and this from NewScientist (how embarrassing). He should try to
correlate "work" with "results". I'm assuming he started to, realized there
was no correlation, and wrote the article anyway. Eating food and breathing
are also necessary but not sufficient. Actually those at least correlate. All
geniuses did do those two things. I'm not sure all of them worked that hard.

About Mozart, I only used him to try to show that "work" sometimes isn't work.
Rimbaud is yet another contradictory example. He started writing in his late
teens and finished abruptly at 20. In those few years he produced works of
genius.

No, I think another commenter was right. The author is clearly someone on the
outside looking in and who is making attempts -- in vain -- to understand.

------
pgausistiaorn
To tell you the truth..isn't it unfair? some kidz are already expose to an
musical background so they turn out to be awesome and great when they become
older..like some musical legends..they started at 10 then being taught by
guitar teachers..so, they became guitar legends..how about us? people who are
passionate learning the guitar. who are in love with music and play it like an
art...we practice almost 7 hours a day. we are good because we are
PERSEVERE...we are not guitar genius or born to play guitar...we are just
passionate to play it...So, a passionate guitarist can beat a guitar
genius..so play with passion and love for music!! "MUSIC IS FROM THE HEART,
DON"T JUST PLAY IT.....LOVE IT!!" (:

------
mynameishere
"Work hard".

Okay, thanks. Actually, we already knew that--you know, the purpose of
research is to discover how to _reduce_ the amount of effort required for a
given result. That is, "How do you move a boulder?" can be answered with "Work
hard" or "Invent a bulldozer." ONE of those answers didn't require much hard
work to conceive.

~~~
mechanical_fish
The problem is that the result that we're talking about -- becoming recognized
as the top person in your field -- is a moving target. It's relative.

In an absolute sense, research has very much reduced the amount of effort
required to listen to world-class classical music in your home -- you used to
have to practice until you could play like Mozart, but now you just buy an
iPod and download high-quality recordings of the world's best musicians for a
couple bucks.

Researchers can also help you effortlessly beat the world chess champion --
they invented Deep Blue. (Soon to be available in laptop size at your local
Best Buy.)

We've even built decent simulations of the experience of playing a world-class
rock guitar solo in front of thousands of fans (Guitar Hero II), coordinating
an attack on a medieval fortress (World of Warcraft) and, yes, beating Tiger
Woods at golf ("EA Sports Tiger Woods PGA Tour '07").

But, of course, it's hard to be _proud_ of these things. Our society still
finds ways to respect the people who put in the hard work to actually _be_
Tiger Woods, and who resist the temptation to just play golf on the
Playstation like the rest of us.

------
henning
It seems to me that if you can get 5x more work done than someone who's a
competent professional in an area, that's genius-like in of itself.

I'm sure reading news.ycombinator.com on Saturday afternoons will make me
5-15x more productive.

------
extantproject
Here's something similar I wrote a while ago based on my experience:

[http://extantproject.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/being-smart-
is...](http://extantproject.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/being-smart-is-hard-
work/)

------
testapplication
>or, to be truer to the data, perhaps 1 per cent inspiration, 29 per cent good
instruction and encouragement, and 70 per cent perspiration.

Wow, these are all in the same unit?

------
Alex3917
"Potential" is just a term created by lazy parents as a justification for
doing a half-ass job at raising their kids.

------
zmfozj
90.20.8041 4:00 16.13apple T.H.B

------
tokipin
they're talking about passion

------
rms
Work is overrated.

