Nurturing Genius(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Nurturing Genius
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nurturing-genius/
81 comments
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.
What you quoted is probably a genius not aware what limitation is the bottleneck for most people.
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).
>What you quoted is probably a genius not aware what limitation is the bottleneck for most people.
While Ed Kmett is in fact a Time Lord, that's largely because he doesn't seem to require sleep the way the rest of us do.
(I know him IRL.)
While Ed Kmett is in fact a Time Lord, that's largely because he doesn't seem to require sleep the way the rest of us do.
(I know him IRL.)
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?
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?
>What are the people who were "gifted" but live a mediocre life supposed to do? Be bitter and drink for 40-60 years?
It is hard to give a brief yet universally applicable answer to "What are _____ supposed to do?", but neither "be bitter" nor "drink" is right.
The best advice I know of is "take well thought out action in pursuit of a worthwhile goal", which of course raises the question of what a worthwhile goal might be. Fortunately, there are many such goals, you don't have to worry about picking the very best goal. Health, fitness and education related goals seem like a good places to start, they will improve the capabilities needed to reach future goals, whatever those might be.
It is hard to give a brief yet universally applicable answer to "What are _____ supposed to do?", but neither "be bitter" nor "drink" is right.
The best advice I know of is "take well thought out action in pursuit of a worthwhile goal", which of course raises the question of what a worthwhile goal might be. Fortunately, there are many such goals, you don't have to worry about picking the very best goal. Health, fitness and education related goals seem like a good places to start, they will improve the capabilities needed to reach future goals, whatever those might be.
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.
No - They're definitely entitled to a better life. But so is everyone else.
The total untapped human potential is staggering once you take into account the effects of war, racism, sexism, general discrimination, mental illness, physical illness, disincentives, and poverty. At least most of these have improved in the last century.
I hope people realize this is not just about altruism, the economic boost would help everyone.
The total untapped human potential is staggering once you take into account the effects of war, racism, sexism, general discrimination, mental illness, physical illness, disincentives, and poverty. At least most of these have improved in the last century.
I hope people realize this is not just about altruism, the economic boost would help everyone.
I think they are saying that someone should be entitled to the same opportunity, despite their home school district and parents. If they don't excel despite those opportunities, nothing entitles them to one life or another. Protecting children from forces beyond their control has long been a goal of many societies and I'd say that's worth keeping.
We as a society would be better off if those people are provided with growth opportunities.
We'd generally be better off if everyone was given growth opportunities; that's just a restatement of the idea of human capital.
We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.
> We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.
It is not self-evident that giving growth opportunities to "talented" individuals maximizes ROI, as opposed to least privileged, for example.
It is not self-evident that giving growth opportunities to "talented" individuals maximizes ROI, as opposed to least privileged, for example.
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".
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With one caveat: My guess is intervention probably has to start early.
I strongly agree. And I have seen it anecdotally a few times in how we have developed entry-level employees and interns who are now top of their field (e.g. One intern is now the VP of design at major tech company). I think the innate talent is in everyone and can be tapped simply by putting them into an environment where they are pushed beyond what might be considered a limit in other areas (even indirectly like through social pressure to keep up with other talented colleagues).
Malcolm Gladwell pointed out how you will see clusters of geniuses emerge from the same time in the same neighborhoods and I think this supports the above as well.
I don't think it's limited to young people either, though it certainly helps. An established reputation will prevent people from being pushed beyond their limits.
Malcolm Gladwell pointed out how you will see clusters of geniuses emerge from the same time in the same neighborhoods and I think this supports the above as well.
I don't think it's limited to young people either, though it certainly helps. An established reputation will prevent people from being pushed beyond their limits.
No shortage of challenging/stimulating environments out there for a variety of skills. Environments clearly matter too. It's more interesting to assess what conditions produce well-adjusted members of society who respond well to being pushed beyond their limits. Can we build uncommon resiliency in people without stunting other aspects?
That depends on your definition of genius, which seems to differ widely from mine but also if one takes "genius" to mean someone who does things a non-genius would not be able to do.
There have been attempts in recent years to roll back and debase the definition of genius to be more compatible with egalitarianism (especially in parts of Europe) and the tenet of homogeneity but this is not what genius originally stood for.
Fabian Tasano writes: "Regarding the version of “genius” that is currently in retreat but still occasionally used: many people seem to have a simplistic idea of what it takes to be one. According to one popular model, all that is required is an increase in the magnitude of certain qualities which everyone already possesses in some measure. Make the particular qualities pronounced enough, and you get to genius. But a better way to understand the concept — assuming we’re applying the word to (say) Gauss or Picasso, rather than John Cleese or Wayne Rooney — may be that a genius has a particular capacity, which on a certain level can seem obvious or unremarkable, but which no one else has. A genius, on this understanding, is a person uniquely capable of making a leap ‘off the path’. With hindsight the leap may seem simple or obvious, but at the time no one else was, apparently, capable of making it. A potential leap of this kind is made possible by preceding leaps. Nevertheless its actual occurrence may go on not happening for decades. During that time there may be clear pointers towards it. Yet it is not until a genius comes along that the leap actually happens."
I could not agree more with this. Alan Kay also outlines an extremely similar point of view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvmTSpJU-Xc
Also see his blue/red world metaphor.
There have been attempts in recent years to roll back and debase the definition of genius to be more compatible with egalitarianism (especially in parts of Europe) and the tenet of homogeneity but this is not what genius originally stood for.
Fabian Tasano writes: "Regarding the version of “genius” that is currently in retreat but still occasionally used: many people seem to have a simplistic idea of what it takes to be one. According to one popular model, all that is required is an increase in the magnitude of certain qualities which everyone already possesses in some measure. Make the particular qualities pronounced enough, and you get to genius. But a better way to understand the concept — assuming we’re applying the word to (say) Gauss or Picasso, rather than John Cleese or Wayne Rooney — may be that a genius has a particular capacity, which on a certain level can seem obvious or unremarkable, but which no one else has. A genius, on this understanding, is a person uniquely capable of making a leap ‘off the path’. With hindsight the leap may seem simple or obvious, but at the time no one else was, apparently, capable of making it. A potential leap of this kind is made possible by preceding leaps. Nevertheless its actual occurrence may go on not happening for decades. During that time there may be clear pointers towards it. Yet it is not until a genius comes along that the leap actually happens."
I could not agree more with this. Alan Kay also outlines an extremely similar point of view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvmTSpJU-Xc
Also see his blue/red world metaphor.
I think it's more controversial to suggest the opposite: that mental ability is innate
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.
His claim is controversial in scientific circles/studies that go against it but the science is controversial in general "anyone has the ability to be anyone" thinking. I highly suggest reading Stephen Pinker's A blank slate.
I don't know any evidence to support that idea. My frustration is that too many people are labeled, pigeonholed and also don't have the resources to ever do their best. Do we underestimate our potential, sure, but we're not all in the 99th percentile.
However my guess is real nootropics won't take another century to get here. We may all be smarter someday.
However my guess is real nootropics won't take another century to get here. We may all be smarter someday.
The basic principles are not a great mystery; actually implementing them is hard though. The best ways we know take a lot of time and dedication (e.g. hours per day of 1:1 or 1:few full-attention effort from an adult tutor who is both a subject expert and an expert teacher), more than we’re usually willing or able to spend on a child. Take a look at the Polgar sisters.
The Polgar sisters are not geniuses in any general sense of that word.
Interesting enough as that "experiment" may have been, it only proved that certain persons of a certain background that includes genetic history unknown to us, can reach high degrees of competence in one __specialized__ field. Chess is also particularly well-coordinated with years of repetitive practice and dedication, but genius? I think not.
You could replace chess with playing the piano even, and the outcome would be the same.
Interesting enough as that "experiment" may have been, it only proved that certain persons of a certain background that includes genetic history unknown to us, can reach high degrees of competence in one __specialized__ field. Chess is also particularly well-coordinated with years of repetitive practice and dedication, but genius? I think not.
You could replace chess with playing the piano even, and the outcome would be the same.
After having interacted with many people who were called “geniuses” in various settings (e.g. Nobel Prize winners, Fields medalists, best-selling novelists, at least a half dozen MacArthur “genius” grant recipients ...), I don’t consider “genius in any general sense” to be a real thing. YMMV.
Look at my previous post for a definition of genius that makes more sense and a possible explanation for its current debasement.
Laszlo Polgar figured out how to teach kids to become chess geniuses. Might be a start.
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?
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?
> 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.
We can be entirely sure it would not exist. This is not a hard prediction.
I think you're right. But I don't understand why they implied its predictive ability is low.
> Someone could be a 4th standard deviation genius
What does this mean? I am not familiar with that. Is that related with IQ or some other metrics?
I googled 4th standard deviation, and it pointed me to Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul... Reading that article, I am still not sure what "4th standard deviation genius" means - does that mean "1 in 15787" of people based on some intelligence metrics?
What does this mean? I am not familiar with that. Is that related with IQ or some other metrics?
I googled 4th standard deviation, and it pointed me to Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul... Reading that article, I am still not sure what "4th standard deviation genius" means - does that mean "1 in 15787" of people based on some intelligence metrics?
Yes. A common way to talk about IQ scores is as a normalized distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15.
So a +4SD IQ score would be 160, or about 1 in 15000. Sounds pretty good, but that makes 20,000 just in the US. There are only 450 NBA players and usually less than 20 A-List actresses at a given time as a comparison.
An aside, anyone who throws out their high IQ unsolicited doesn't seem to make for interesting conversation. Maybe it's too hard to keep up. :)
So a +4SD IQ score would be 160, or about 1 in 15000. Sounds pretty good, but that makes 20,000 just in the US. There are only 450 NBA players and usually less than 20 A-List actresses at a given time as a comparison.
An aside, anyone who throws out their high IQ unsolicited doesn't seem to make for interesting conversation. Maybe it's too hard to keep up. :)
As a follow up to this, yes, 15 tends to be the standard deviation. However, most, if not all tests have a cap to the highest score they can return, which is about 160. I believe this is the case for both Stanford-Binet as well as Weschsler (WISC):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelli...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Intelligence_Scale_fo...
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that one of the reasons that 160 is the max score is that the tests need to be normed and that's difficult to do once you pass so many standard deviations.
As another note, the overall composite score can qualify a student for services in a public school, but a good diagnostician will be using the test to assess areas of strength and weakness. Basically, a student who has high spatial reasoning, but poor verbal IQ requires different assistance than the reverse.
Anyway, yes, I'll agree that I hate IQ measuring contests because they're just like the other anatomical measuring contests. Further, if even someone wants to have one, they're almost never about the results from a properly normed test like those from above and, further, those tests contain a lot more information than a single number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelli...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Intelligence_Scale_fo...
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that one of the reasons that 160 is the max score is that the tests need to be normed and that's difficult to do once you pass so many standard deviations.
As another note, the overall composite score can qualify a student for services in a public school, but a good diagnostician will be using the test to assess areas of strength and weakness. Basically, a student who has high spatial reasoning, but poor verbal IQ requires different assistance than the reverse.
Anyway, yes, I'll agree that I hate IQ measuring contests because they're just like the other anatomical measuring contests. Further, if even someone wants to have one, they're almost never about the results from a properly normed test like those from above and, further, those tests contain a lot more information than a single number.
Thank you for clarification. I also like your comparison with NBA and A-actors.
I am Mensa member which means my IQ is in top 2% of the general population of my country. Because of the membership and my active involvement, I know a lot of people with high IQ. And my conclusion is that IQ doesn't mean too much. Yes, I think that some of them are very smart, but not genius level smart. Not even close.
In my opinion, the usefulness of the IQ metric is very questionable.
I'd say the comparison is not quite right, as everyone can be assigned an IQ (however useful that may be), but not everyone aspires to be an NBA player or A-List actress.
How do you assign an IQ to someone who doesn't want to be tested?
You don't have to, you can just use basic statistics for that, because the pool of people who have an IQ is everyone.
The pool of people who aspire to be NBA players or A list actresses is not everyone though, so you have to estimate first the respective pools.
The pool of people who aspire to be NBA players or A list actresses is not everyone though, so you have to estimate first the respective pools.
False. Aspiration is a red herring.
You can just as easily use statistics to assess whether an individual possesses the traits to become an NBA player or actress as you can assess their IQ without their cooperation.
Conversely if someone doesn't want to participate in IQ testing, it is equivalent to them not wanting to play in the NBA.
You can just as easily use statistics to assess whether an individual possesses the traits to become an NBA player or actress as you can assess their IQ without their cooperation.
Conversely if someone doesn't want to participate in IQ testing, it is equivalent to them not wanting to play in the NBA.
There is no doubt that you can DEFINE this to be equivalent. But then you are measuring something different from what I am interested in.
I'm not doing anything with definitions. You have introduced an arbitrary distinction which is based on no measurable characteristic.
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?
Aristotle[0] is credited with starting that conversation.
But the belief that humans have "equal capabilities aside from their environment" is held by almost nobody. Most disagreements are about what we should do about both unequal capability and unequal environment. Dogmatism enters when we disagree over why anything should be done.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
But the belief that humans have "equal capabilities aside from their environment" is held by almost nobody. Most disagreements are about what we should do about both unequal capability and unequal environment. Dogmatism enters when we disagree over why anything should be done.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
B.F. Skinner, the father of behavioral psychology
“Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything.”
“Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything.”
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.
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...
In case you're wondering how this plays out in practice:
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009academicf...
"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.
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..."
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..."
I'm a little lost. Is your argument here that there's no such thing as an egalitarian conservative?
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.
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.
I can't follow this any better than the last one. Can you state your claim in plain language?
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.
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).
(I'm not one of them).
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.
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.
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.
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
Speaking of abstracts ... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2832.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
Enough with the geniuses cargo cult.
How about nurturing normal people collaborating, respecting the scientific process, loving to discover new things, be curious, etc?
How about nurturing normal people collaborating, respecting the scientific process, loving to discover new things, be curious, etc?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
If you're located anywhere near the Amsterdam/Utrecht area, don't hesitate to hit me up for a coffee (or beer)!
I'm a web developer and while I might not have much to teach you about programming, I've been working as a freelancer/small-business owner for the past half decade or so.
In the past year I've been actively working towards figuring out ways to help or collaborate with people who eschewed the typical college path and/or are looking into programming as a career path or just a way to make a living.
I'm a web developer and while I might not have much to teach you about programming, I've been working as a freelancer/small-business owner for the past half decade or so.
In the past year I've been actively working towards figuring out ways to help or collaborate with people who eschewed the typical college path and/or are looking into programming as a career path or just a way to make a living.
> I hated every fucking day of school from the day I got in, to the day I got out.
> I hope I'm able to fully convey to which extent it has traumatized me.
I always feel bad about thinking these two things, because to be honest my life was mostly privileged and because many people would feel lucky just to have access to some form of education, but I truly feel the same way.
I went through the public school system in the US and hated every moment of it, despite being socially adept and not subject to bullying from other students. I was just so incredibly bored. That's not to say that my teachers were necessarily bad, or that every subject was too easy / not worth learning (though some were), it was just that sitting still and silent in a classroom of 30+ kids for 8 hours a day ran contrary to my ideal learning environment in every possible way. It is not natural for most children to be silent, and then be yelled at for giving in to the massive urge to socialize. It is not natural to have almost no physical stimulation throughout the day. Now even as an adult I need to exercise 1.5 - 2 hours a day to keep my mind calm. I was so overstimulated by my environment that paying attention in school was hopeless. I cannot focus when I am around other people (especially at the time the opposite sex). Past 6th grade or so I was daydreaming nearly every minute of the day. I learned literally nothing in junior high and high school. I asked to drop out and home school myself on a routine basis but it wasn't an option. It took a long time after to break certain negative associations and rekindle the love of learning that I always knew that I had.
> I hope I'm able to fully convey to which extent it has traumatized me.
I always feel bad about thinking these two things, because to be honest my life was mostly privileged and because many people would feel lucky just to have access to some form of education, but I truly feel the same way.
I went through the public school system in the US and hated every moment of it, despite being socially adept and not subject to bullying from other students. I was just so incredibly bored. That's not to say that my teachers were necessarily bad, or that every subject was too easy / not worth learning (though some were), it was just that sitting still and silent in a classroom of 30+ kids for 8 hours a day ran contrary to my ideal learning environment in every possible way. It is not natural for most children to be silent, and then be yelled at for giving in to the massive urge to socialize. It is not natural to have almost no physical stimulation throughout the day. Now even as an adult I need to exercise 1.5 - 2 hours a day to keep my mind calm. I was so overstimulated by my environment that paying attention in school was hopeless. I cannot focus when I am around other people (especially at the time the opposite sex). Past 6th grade or so I was daydreaming nearly every minute of the day. I learned literally nothing in junior high and high school. I asked to drop out and home school myself on a routine basis but it wasn't an option. It took a long time after to break certain negative associations and rekindle the love of learning that I always knew that I had.
Sounds like a lot of suffering.. Boredom is a killer. Were you treated for this or have followed it closely? Did you indulge in physical activities and still felt the need to do that?
Some teachers in primary school used to let me play in class (go to the back and sort of move around, get between two tables and play pendulum/swing with my legs). Apparently it was that painful to watch a bored kid. But I think it was better because I also did a lot of physical activities that I think helped mitigate.
As to college, to be honest, the curriculum is truly primo quality, straight out of the Soviet system. The college was about 40,000 students, all in Sci & Tech. (no humanities).
Engineering students go through two years of common core where you study a bunch of Math/Physics/Chemistry/Strength of Materials/Manufacturing(lathe, molding)/Industrial drawing/Programming courses.
Every Engineering student goes through that, except Software people who only do one year (they miss the coolest one).
The syllabus is good.. (we got to learn about RST controllers which are rarely taught).
The problem though is that they don't capitalize on what has been done to do more and they don't have ways to test out of courses (there's a bunch of courses I could have tested out of. I ended up had good grades in them and it just wasted my time). And also some profs are unethical (nice when they give you a class or a half to tutor, and then slaughter your grade and disappear, some don't even correct your sheet).
Plus you don't get to build on what you've learned. Scarce electronic parts. Rare projects. You had to search a lot to find good solder. You can't do PCB traces under a certain width. Forget about SMD.
I struggled to get a credit card, and then the stuff you buy online either got "permanently misplaced", lost, or held at customs. It's like that Carl Sagan quote: "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." Struggling to do the basic stuff for so long gets tiring, and dulls your edge.
Some teachers in primary school used to let me play in class (go to the back and sort of move around, get between two tables and play pendulum/swing with my legs). Apparently it was that painful to watch a bored kid. But I think it was better because I also did a lot of physical activities that I think helped mitigate.
As to college, to be honest, the curriculum is truly primo quality, straight out of the Soviet system. The college was about 40,000 students, all in Sci & Tech. (no humanities).
Engineering students go through two years of common core where you study a bunch of Math/Physics/Chemistry/Strength of Materials/Manufacturing(lathe, molding)/Industrial drawing/Programming courses.
Every Engineering student goes through that, except Software people who only do one year (they miss the coolest one).
The syllabus is good.. (we got to learn about RST controllers which are rarely taught).
The problem though is that they don't capitalize on what has been done to do more and they don't have ways to test out of courses (there's a bunch of courses I could have tested out of. I ended up had good grades in them and it just wasted my time). And also some profs are unethical (nice when they give you a class or a half to tutor, and then slaughter your grade and disappear, some don't even correct your sheet).
Plus you don't get to build on what you've learned. Scarce electronic parts. Rare projects. You had to search a lot to find good solder. You can't do PCB traces under a certain width. Forget about SMD.
I struggled to get a credit card, and then the stuff you buy online either got "permanently misplaced", lost, or held at customs. It's like that Carl Sagan quote: "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." Struggling to do the basic stuff for so long gets tiring, and dulls your edge.
Was that Algeria you were in?
Based on the number ("200,000") and timing, I can't think of another conflict that fits the profile.
Based on the number ("200,000") and timing, I can't think of another conflict that fits the profile.
>Was that Algeria you were in?
Yeap. Still in.
On a side note, how did you match it? Is this part of the stuff you usually read about, etc?
Yeap. Still in.
On a side note, how did you match it? Is this part of the stuff you usually read about, etc?
Yes, general interest -- as I mentioned, the number was the main clue for me. Also, I spent some time in France around 20 years ago, where there were a large number of ethnic Algerians who often discussed the issue at length.
Yeah, 20 years ago is practically the height of the crisis with the more brutal massacres (like 200 at a time). They were probably of those who asked for asylum or the thousands who left the country. It was harder for them because they knew peace before and easier on my generation because we were children who'd only known that, so it was sort of normal.
"Jugurtha" is a pretty easy tipoff. Not that Americans would learn who Jugurtha was in school, except maybe grad school, but a few of us still read books...
Я тоже люблю книги, Пётр* ! Kapitza is also a tipoff..
* : "I love books too, Peter". In reference to Peter Kapitza. I should get back to learning Russian.
* : "I love books too, Peter". In reference to Peter Kapitza. I should get back to learning Russian.
Love to hear any book recommendations on the Algerian wars, especially older books in English, not by Alistair Horne, and not taking the standard Western "missionary position." Really like Wolves in the City by Paul Henissart, about the OAS episode...
Sorry for the delay, kapitza..
Hard to think of something off the top of my head. I don't really think about this stuff with "internationalization" in mind so I've never paid attention to which authors were translated.
Not sure if you'd like content in a "History" perspective, I know Benjamin Stora is translated.
Henri Alleg also wrote about it (The Question. He was in trouble with Maurice Audin). Frantz Fanon was in the Algerian Liberation Front.
For novels, you can look up Mouloud Mammeri, Mouloud Feraoun, Albert Camus, Assia Djebar, etc.
Again, sorry for the late reply.
Hard to think of something off the top of my head. I don't really think about this stuff with "internationalization" in mind so I've never paid attention to which authors were translated.
Not sure if you'd like content in a "History" perspective, I know Benjamin Stora is translated.
Henri Alleg also wrote about it (The Question. He was in trouble with Maurice Audin). Frantz Fanon was in the Algerian Liberation Front.
For novels, you can look up Mouloud Mammeri, Mouloud Feraoun, Albert Camus, Assia Djebar, etc.
Again, sorry for the late reply.
[deleted]
"“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.
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.
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.
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.
https://yow.eventer.com/yow-2014-1222/stop-treading-water-le... (~40min)
(slides: http://yowconference.com.au/slides/yow2014/Kmett-StopTreadin...)
One of the topics he touched upon is Richard Feynman's approach to "being a genius":