How to be a genius
newscientist.com
newscientist.com
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/...
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
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).
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?
I'm with you Shiro... I'll take fun any day.
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?
I know which I'm going to put more stock in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Studies of chess masters and highly successful artists, scientists and musicians usually find their IQs to be above average, typically in the 115 to 130 range, where some 14 per cent of the population reside - impressive enough, but hardly as rarefied as their achievements and abilities."
For example.
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.
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"
The way I read the article is that intelligence is necessary but is not sufficient in of itself.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure reading news.ycombinator.com on Saturday afternoons will make me 5-15x more productive.
http://extantproject.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/being-smart-is...
Wow, these are all in the same unit?