Genius Checklist
supermemo.guru
supermemo.guru
I know a few people I'd consider geniuses. Actual credentialed geniuses, as in Physics PhD from an ivy. They're pretty much perpetually in a shitty mood and have the most antisocial, night-time oriented schedules possible.
If that’s your definition of genius you have to raise your standards.
”The world is filled with educated fools and uneducated genuises.” – Richard Feynman
Agreed that credentials aren't required for a pass to the genius club, but I didn't read that in the post above either.
Then later I had the pleasure of spending some time with true outliers, who usually also studied at top universities. Some of them would be obsessed with their field of study, and seriously work 80 hours a week on papers and projects. Some of them seem like completely normal people, with social lives and hobbies, and then you see the work they do and are just blown away at the genius they put in there somehow.
And then there are the behemoths; you can throw any topic at them, and they will say something interesting. There are few things more mindboggling and intimidating than introducing someone to a topic you are intimately familiar with, and they basically immediately answer one of your open questions, while asking a much more interesting and deep question regarding the topic.
You can find geniuses anywhere, but in my limited experience, there's a much higher density of these kinds of people at these places. But, because of how the top universities are structured, the inverse isn't true: Going to a top university does not make you better.
I mean, how can the rest of this thing even be taken seriously?
He has a masters degree in molecular biology, another in computer science, a doctoral degree, and has spent 39 years working on learning and cognition, has been one of the main promoters of spaced repetition learning. Surely he deserves more than an "I mean, lol, right guys" dismissal?
Example: Terence Tao attending university level math courses at age 9 [1]
This cannot be explained by any checklist or regimen.
... But the site never claimed that you'd become a genius by following the checklist. Just that you'd make a lot of progress.
The items on the checklist also do seem to be associated with many of the people that I've met who I'd call geniuses. (I've been lucky to meet a few, at least online.) For example, intellectual curiosity, stress free life, solid sleep schedule, general happiness.
It's very difficult to find an instance of a miserable genius. Misery, for unknown reasons, seems to undercut one's ability to apply their genius traits.
So although I don't think this checklist is going to transform you into a genius, it does seem to be a checklist of qualities that geniuses tend to share. I just wish it was presented in a clinical, dispassionate way, rather than a "you can too!" style.
Isaac Newton?
I imagine that pg's bio might have similar things to say, but those who knew him remember how snappy and full of energy he is. His online persona and writings give a very different impression.
So its a mix of genetics and experience in my opinion.
There is a story of Terence where at 4 or 5 years old or so explained math to his cousins who were 9 or so years old, but my memory may not serve me right.
I share a similar experience and I am certainly not a genius. By 4 I was doing long division and multiplication, and playing with negative and parentheses; this was the consequence of attentive parents. As I grew older my environment became significantly less supportive and even hostile. At 16 I was deep in depression and almost failed math at precalc, only for the next year to have the highest scores in honors and I was against people who also did A-levels for a year and therefore had well over a year more experience.
I genuinely believe we are a) not asking enough of our brains, and b) not providing the right environment for children to grow as school is often treated as baby sitting for parents to ~~slave away at~~ work.
and that ability allows them to produce work in some field dependent on that ability that is innovative and clearly superior to other works in that field. At least that's part of my definition.
>Example: Terence Tao attending university level math courses at age 9
that's a prodigy, when they achieve breakthroughs when adult is when I start to talk about genius.
Also, the wikipedia talks about his research contribution and it is highly impressive. He is one of the top mathematician in the world.
Specifically, from the Q&A, he says:
> Q. What is genius, and how is it produced?
>> A. Let us take several specimens of the species, and try to find some one thing common to all which is not found in other species.
> Q. Is there any such thing?
>> A. Yes: all geniuses have the habit of concentration of thought, and usually need long periods of solitude to acquire this habit. ...
His training system -- the A∴A∴ -- is designed to lead people to their genius. Interestingly, it is very similar to this checklist: it teaches self-discipline (by having to follow a specific training program); studying great people and works of philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics, etc; controlling emotions; controlling thought (including constraining it to a single idea); writing down ideas; etc.
I think Crowley goes much further and was more rigorous in his approach to applying the ideas listed. In his view, you don't _become_ a genius through this work, but connect to the genius that is already inside everyone. Connecting to this Genius and finding out your goals in life is the key to a joyful life -- or, as TFA says, 'Establishing a clear goal for your life should be a priority'.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
> Which brings us to the most important principle on HN: civility. Since long before the web, the anonymity of online conversation has lured people into being much ruder than they'd be in person. So the principle here is: don't say anything you wouldn't say face to face. This doesn't mean you can't disagree. But disagree without calling names. If you're right, your argument will be more convincing without them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
And so on.
First paragraph:
> A majority of people carry the potential to become a genius. There are factors that are far more important than genes and IQ. I have compiled a checklist that I believe should work, when followed. All you need to begin with is to be free and reasonably healthy. I try to list the factors that prevent many people from accomplishing their greatest potential. The list begins with the stumbling blocks that are most likely to occur on one's road to genius. Some factors need to be balanced against each other, and some factors overlap.
There seems to be a gap between people who are solidly competent in a domain and perhaps somewhat more creative and insightful than average, and extreme gamechangers who completely transform an existing domain and/or invent a completely new one.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the author seems more of the former than the latter.
That's not a bad goal in itself, but I'm always wary of people who seem to be applying the latter label to themselves.
Sure. Totally believable.
Idle brains rot.
It's spot on tho that comfort & saftey provides the opportunity for genius to develop.
Anybody who's in the US middle class can have a low stress life. Most don't because they want things. (Mostly they want to compete with people they view as their peers.)
There's lots more but I mean - surely that's sufficient to get the idea across?
Not sure what country your experiences are based on, but I consider American middle class to usually be salaried people who are homeowners (maybe with mortgage, fair enough), so several of the points you raised don't apply. That said, of course, it's a pretty fuzzy category.
Please try to behave nicely on HN. There is no need to insult others here (for instance, by saying that they don't get something that is "obvious").
If it were really about stress you’d see a difference in kids who have a parent working in the public sector.
In other words, "rich" (from the global perspective).
Why do you have to insert social commentary? It's off topic.
I start biting nails immediately.
do not browse the web. Find materials on demand with Google. Prioritize demands with incremental reading
do not read articles on the web. Preview articles that are worth importing to SuperMemo and import them for prioritized increading
do not watch YouTube. Use incremental video before sleep (preferably while walking)
> If you’re in Afghanistan, you probably wouldn’t miss what’s going on.
In this particular instance you certainly could miss something important in time. The chances to escape there probably dropped rapidly.
At least that's how I am rationalizing reading Hacker News. It covers both news like Afghanistan and computer science.
Actually, 26% (55/210). You say 25% and nobody notices. You say 26% and you convey a message you understand things on a deeper level (still shallow but much, much better than no level at all). I'd pick 27%, though.
I disagree with this bit of advice very much. In my experience if an idea is a good one it will occur to me again. Very often in a more refined form. Of course if you are working on something actively feel free to write it down. But when not actively working on a given problem? My brain is a good place for ideas to percolate in. Besides I have a ton of ideas. It would be silly to treat each little thing as a precious resource like a miser.
The roots of creativity and genius http://super-memory.com/articles/genius.htm
How does Supermemo compare to Anki?
Supermemo also supports incremental reading; a very intriguing concept. Of course all of this comes together bundled in a windows app with no mobile support. Anki ecosystem is much easier to use.
This is a good checklist for people who want to self-improve, but for being a genius? I'd argue there's quite a bit more at play than just your frame of mind.
One problematic thing in the list is about passion and goals.
You can become an expert or even a great, but passions and goals change for a variety of reasons. A common one that will stop achievement dead on is being passionate for your family, or wanting to do something good or memorable for the world that does not align with what you do. Changing your mind is the most human thing one can do.
Many a genius did not have a clear passion, but they had a different drive, such as solving a puzzle or wanted pure knowledge, or liked recognition; combined with grit and creativity and a fair degree of luck that alone can get one to genius.
Material concerns are more sure to torpedo genius than stress or even disability.
So much genius comes with some sort of cost to the genius, in some form, like a vice as you say (e.g alcohol abuse), or the genius' mental health suffers since solitude and genius go hand-in-hand.
What else would you tell overweight people?
People will change when they want to - and at that point the advice becomes actionable
There is plenty of data about what is more effective in getting people to actually change their behavior, e.g.
1. Find a workout or weight loss buddy that so you can help keep each other on track. There is loads of evidence that social connections and pressures can be very helpful.
2. Don't try to make drastic changes all at once, for example for many people doing something like completely getting rid of soda and replacing it with lightly sweetened tea can make a huge difference, and that's usually a lot easier to do than, say, never eat out at restaurants.
3. Do something that you can easily integrate into your routine instead of doing something that feels like you have to do "extra" to start. E.g. if you commute to work, if possible, park a half mile away from your office and walk the rest of they way.
All of this is much better advice than "eat less".
What's insanity is to keep saying the same thing over and over and expecting you'll get different results. American society is constantly inundated with the message of "eat less, exercise more", yet somehow we are fatter than ever.
But people are also highly social animals and often operate in hierarchies. So the ability to effectively position oneself socially seems key to having genius ideas or cognitive abilities recognized. That or having a friend with those characteristics.
The best is when an individual combines natural ability with deliberate practice.
Thoroughly with reference to…
That, or I suppose to the idea of someone who takes the care to compile (what I assume to be) a checklist of traits of genius, should fail to consider the basic necessity of ensuring it remain available so that people can read it. But perhaps they are the same.
I will let you look up those words, but apropos is frequently misused on HN.
With sleep, one might not be able to get more hours or sleep, but it's possible to improve the quality of sleep. For example I recently was not sleeping well, was diagnosed with a sleep apnea, and now using a CPAP machine allows the sleep I do get to be better quality. Other things: journal and meditate before bed to calm the mind, stretch/yoga/qigong to relax the body
There are other careers - problem solved!
It also helps you sleep, because the difficulties sleeping are controlled/helped by learning mindfulness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5337506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557693/
https://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_en...
If you want to stay healthy, wear shorts all the time, run weekly half-marathons in the woods, get plenty of sleep... and avoid sick people.
A few common-sense morsels wrapped in pseudoscience and self-gratifying prose.
We’ve got a leader in the clubhouse for the 2021 Accidental HN Slogan Contest.
All that to say that evaluation of this list should be more thorough as opposed to total acceptance or total rejection.
I have similar problem when discussing Rudolf Steiner schools/“sects”(?) - they are really good people doing really good things compared to status quo - I love buying food from their shops because I know they have incomparable quality to what I can get at nearby shops (meat, eggs, veggies etc), they grow them in harmony (no depleting monocultures, pesticides etc). At the same time I know Steiner is pseudoscience labelled - I’m aware of it but it doesn’t subtract enough from good parts.
What I’m trying to say it’s not all bad period, it’s more nuanced.
It's like if your mom told you that turmeric powder works great to cure certain ailments and then 5 years later a study comes out which proves her right. Mom's cure was still psuedoscience until the research is actually done.
Anecdotes and folk wisdom are quasiscience -- partial science.
From there:
> I am no guru, but when .guru domains became available, my colleagues suggested that only I could own that domain. We bought supermemo.guru in February 2014, and I accepted the position of the guru on the understanding that the world of SuperMemo is so specialist that it may indeed be hard to find a better SuperMemo Guru.
There is a culture today of making sure people know how "wrong" they are.
Because a lot of con artist use one or two scientific facts that are for real just to attach a wagon of horseshit to it.
You also probably don't need "super guru" checklists because becoming a genius is not checking off tasks. Just like reading Warren Buffet biography is not going to make you good investor.
Have you read any books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material recently?
The difference is that the honest:
- Are aware of this.
- Own their mistakes.
- Correct them.
- And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others.
Bullshit wrapped in a veneer of truth sells far more readily than the unadulterated variety. All the better if there's only one specific bullshit point that's being injected --- why go through the risk and trouble of fabulating more than is absolutely necessary.
- Own their mistakes.
- Correct them.
- And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-c...
The New York Times has a dedicated Corrections section:
https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
At the Washington Post you'll have to search for the string "Correction:" best I can tell:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correcti...
The Post's corrections policy is noted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre...
Where stories are significant, a substantial and highlighted retraction is issued. An example from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-...
That was one of several notable 2014 retractons. Newsweek covers several of these: https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions...
Other typical language is "correction" followed by "regrets the error". Sample searches:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%2...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22corre...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction...
Note that online, corrections frequently appear in an updated version of the original article, though they are then noted in an additional comment. As in this NYT example: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-f...
Every last mistake and error cannot be corrected or retracted. But serious, responsible, ethical journalism makes a very earnest attempt to correct errors when they are brought to the publication's attention. And not to double-down on insisting on being wrong.
I try to do the same myself. As shown in my HN history: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
In the era where the paper was printed in limited numbers on a fixed schedule, a printed set of corrections was somewhat meaningful, although still inadequate.
Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction.
There is no reason for a newspaper page not to have an edit history other than to hide errors, or because they just don’t care enough.
I respond:
Corrections: Aug. 21, 2021
Corrections that appeared in print on Saturday, Aug. 21, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/pageoneplus/corrections-a...
That lists four articles. For yesterday's edition.
Skipping back four days to the 16th, you'll find six corrections listed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/pageoneplus/corrections-a...
It's unclear to me what definitions of "today", "just an artifact", "without indicating", or "not the same as a correction" mean in your usage, but they don't fit the actual facts of the universe I seem to be inhabiting.
In no way does it constitute an honest acknowledgment of error.
Newspapers do not own their mistakes or correct them.
Publishing a dry, hard to use correction log where it is obvious most people won’t see it doesn’t change this.
https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre...
Repeating a falsehood, regardless of the Bellman's assertion, does not make it true.[1]
You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already.
________________________________
Notes:
Do you think that the corrections log actually undoes the impact on people who read the false report?
Do you think most people check that log to see if the previous articles they read have been corrected?
The claim you made was that they own their mistakes and correct them.
If your argument is that they quietly admit their mistakes somewhere very few people look, then I will agree to that. If you can find me denying that, you can quote me on it.
My claim is that this doesn’t correct the mistake. When you misinform someone, the only way to correct the mistake, is to let that person know, and give them the right information.
The corrections page might have been a good faith effort at doing this in the print era, but it definitely doesn’t work in the digital era.
More importantly, what you are referring to as ‘corrections’ are simply edits they make. That has nothing to do with owning one’s mistakes.
They can easily be wrong about or present something in a distorted way, and that won’t make it into a ‘correction’. I don’t see how you can call this behavior ‘owning one’s mistakes’.
Bear in mind, we are commenting on a post by Piotr Wozniak, who does in fact own his point of view, and explains exactly why he says the things people accuse of being pseudoscience.
> You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already.
It would be better for you to address the argument rather than engaging in ad-hominem. That is the usual guideline around here.
It's not worth your time.
Making a list of corrections that the people who read the incorrect article never see clearly doesn’t correct anything. The damage is done.
It doesn’t matter how many times the word ‘corrections’ is used.
Except that, ya know, it's a correction, so it does correct something. Once again you are intentionally inaccurately or poorly describing something in an effort to drive home your point. I am not going to be engaging with you any further.
> I am not going to be engaging with you any further.
Good.
Though yes, clearly there's something not right here.
I'm not willing to dismiss all of a source based on incidental errors. I may even be willing to allow some major factual or rational flaws where a piece does point out some salient point, or serves as a foundational resouce of some sort. (You could include virtually all of mythology, fables, philosophy, and/or religion in this description.)
Where a source is clearly making a motivated attempt at deception, or where it shows a clear ambivalence to truth (Frankfurt's definition in "On Bullshit"), and there's nothing in the source that's not otherwise available ... my tolerance drops sharply.
This is where the intentional deception of a tremendous amount of narrative (I hesitate to even call it "information") deserves a death penalty.
The attitude expressed by supermemo.guru seems to fall squarely in this camp.
I address the point of intellectual honesty and journalistic standards, of admitting and publicly noting errors, in this somewhat tedious subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28261042
> In the year 2000, there was a major drop in infections and the problem of lost productivity disappeared entirely by 2003. There are only 3 factors that could have produced those dramatic shifts. In the year 1999, I dropped all forms of sleep regulation, esp. the alarm clock. In the year 2003, I added weekly winter swimming and weekly half-marathon in the woods. No other solid explanations come to my mind.
Could it be the lack of exposure to university students?