Book Review: Raise a Genius (2017) | Hacker News Reader

Book Review: Raise a Genius (2017)

slatestarcodex.com

52 pointssaadalem26 comments

The “concentrate on one subject” part is interesting. I reminds me of "get good enough in one skill to see the meta game" [0]:

> There seems to be something in getting good at a skill tree that helps in latter life. I’d like to think it is a function of exposure: once you see the competitive meta at the top of one skill tree, you begin looking for it everywhere else.

So the theory is something like: If you achieve mastery in one skill, it helps learning other skills because you know better what to aim for.

[0] https://commoncog.com/blog/to-get-good-go-after-the-metagame...

I honestly think I got this experience from playing video games.

My real motivation for playing games in my youth was that I enjoyed trying to become better than everyone else. I would come up with my own practice drills to build muscle memory and spent hours studying map layouts -- enough that I knew what each area of the map looked like from my enemy's viewpoint as well as my own. Eventually I started searching for bugs in the game that could give me an advantage over other players. To make the game more challenging, I'd set restrictions for myself and see if I could still win. All of this allowed me to see the game in a way that most other players did not.

I'm convinced that this experience -- which all the adults in my life at the time deemed "unhealthy" -- actually taught me how to learn, and how to get good at something.

I can remember feeling disappointed when everyone stopped playing that game. I felt like I'd spent thousands of hours studying something with no practical application. What a waste of time!. Looking back, I think I may have taken away more than I realized.

Well done! This is why many successful people tell others to work on things that interest them and not blindly follow money

I have heard about "competitive meta" before. What I don't understand is how it's any different than "responding to changes in how a game works"? All of the examples in the link are like this (Magic has new cards, let's figure out how to use them; judo has new rules, let's figure out how to adapt to them; our Ultimate opponent is using a certain strategy, let's try to counter it).

Here's a different example:

Super Smash Bros Melee is almost 20 years old and still sees competitive play. There's a technique in the game called pivoting, which is a one-frame input used to unlock more movement options. It's been known for a while, but top players didn't make much use of it, as such a demanding mechanic seemed beyond the reach of consistent human performance.

A new(ish) player, Zain, has become one of the best in the world, and he makes frequent use of pivots, among many well-known but underused techniques.

The rules haven't changed. The tools have always been there. But now someone is picking them up. This layer of the game, once thought to be "not worth it," has now entered the metagame.

(There's actually an upcoming documentary about Melee called Metagame. To be released... eventually)

I think the difference is that in this context it’s at least as much about what the other players are doing as the way the game actually works. Learning how to operate within the new rules is still just part of the game. Learning how to counter those strategies when your opponents adopt then would be considered the metagame. And sometimes the meta changes not due to changes in the rules, but simply because someone has an innovation in strategy or tactics which starts to be adopted en masse. Then someone figures out how to counter that and the cycle continues.

Yes, that's what it is. Although the 'competitive' meta would be limitied to the adaptations of the top players.

The concept is common enough in gaming culture that they popularized a name for it.

So along these lines:

I have a 14 month old son, and am really interested in just generally understanding the cognitive development of kids and how they learn about the world over time.

Are there any good books on the subject?

You could check out Jean Piaget. Wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

He is a big name in Psychology circles on the cognitive development of the child. From the Wikipedia article: "Piaget was second only to B. F. Skinner as the most cited psychologist of that era."

I think a lot of Piaget's work has either been built on or pushed back on in more recent research, so while it definitely could be a good place to start I would make sure you also look into some more modern work. The other benefit of that is you can also reach out with questions, at least I've generally had good luck with getting responses from PIs. Laura Schulz is a super nice person who may have work of interest to you GP.

There is a somewhat lighthearted book (and a sequel) on this:

https://www.experimentingwithbabies.com/experiments/

which covers a lot of simple experiments (that should be harmless), the theory behind them and what result you can expect to see. Children develop quite fast, so you've already missed the first half of the book! But book 1 covers up to 2 years, and you can look at the sequel for beyond.

It includes things like the spot/mirror test, seeing what toys kids are interested in based on what adults look at, etc.

(I feel I should point out I don't have kids, but I would definitely want to try this out if I did. As far as I can tell none of these experiments should cause any ethical concerns, but you should be the judge of that since your child can't give consent!)

Brain Rules For Baby is very good. It was recommended here a while ago. Wish I'd read it before having children.

https://amzn.eu/6oAgLWv

Before you take any recommendations make sure you have the meta framework to understand what different schools of learning are. BF Skinner and his group of psychologist belong to the behaviorist school of psychology & learning, which believe that creating the right environment inculcates learning. The other school is constructivist school which believes that knowledge adds on to what is already in the mind.

Problem of schooling by Piotr Wozniak: https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Problem_of_Schooling

Of course main subject is criticism of school but it also has a lot on learning and how child brains work (and how they don’t)

Alison gopnik’s ‘the philosophical baby’ is excellent

I didn't have kids yet but I like to know too.

Of course if you select a kid’s profession at 3 or 4 they’ll be good at it. But doesn’t that stifle them? What if they should’ve been something else?

Here's a relevant quote:

“How much should parents intervene in the future of their children? Should they influence the choice of profession, partner or politics?” Let us begin with the choice of profession. I will speak only about parents who seriously endeavor to smooth the way for their children. Among them there are two types. Some say that a child should be many-faceted, “taste” everything, and in adulthood or close to it they should decide for themselves what they will do. I can also understand this standpoint. However, if the parents wish the children to achieve genius results, then – in my opinion – the parents’ decision should not be put off, and one should decide the direction of their specialization even in infancy.

However, his sample curriculum looks like this:

– 4 hours of specialist study (for us, chess)

– 1 hour of a foreign language. Esperanto in the first year, English in the second, and another chosen at will in the third. At the stage of beginning, that is, intensive language instruction, it is necessary to increase the study hours to 3 – in place of the specialist study – for 3 months. In summer, study trips to other countries.

– 1 hour of general study (native language, natural science and social studies)

– 1 hour of computing

– 1 hour of moral, psychological, and pedagogical studies (humor lessons as well, with 20 minutes every hour for joke telling)

– 1 hour of gymnastics, freely chosen, which can be accomplished individually outside school. The division of study hours can of course be treated elastically.

So it's not like he is advocating 100% focus on the specialty to the exclusion of all other subjects. The educator and child together should be able to switch the specialty based on early signs of preference and capability.

The specialty actually provides context for the other subjects. You don't learn to write for the sake of writing, you write about chess. You get to practice the foreign language at tournaments with people from other countries, etc.

I highly recommend reading the book. It's probably not what you expect. He makes a compelling case that we should consider the opposite of your question: does letting kids wander aimlessly stifle them?

He also advocates for educational pluralism. You should be free to explore your question with your children.

You say that as if there is a divine purpose for each of us. By the same logic, what if their profession should have been selected by their parents?

This line of thinking is inpractical.

> I was pretty upset because, although he had a book called Raise A Genius, it was hard to find and only available in Hungarian and Esperanto.

Not that it matters but I have this book in French. 'Le phénomène Polgar, ou l'art de former des génies'. ISBN 2-87148-024-9.

Is there a Hacker News about parenting? I am looking for a community with similar social norms to HN, but parenting-related content.

Don't raise kids that are going to be bored at school.

I enjoy some of Alexander's writing but I really hope he would consider making a proper mobile view of his website.

At least the reader view in Firefox fixes it.

Scott doesn't program things. There's a guy he knows who set it up, so it depends on his schedule I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com