5 ms·

Bringing Up Genius

49 points by akbarnama 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
hugh4 11y ago
To the extent that chess players can really be considered geniuses, it seems like a horrendous waste of genius.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  Perhaps... it is just an escape http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/01/bobby-fischer-ayn-rand-open-letter-to.html http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/01/bobby-fischer-ayn-...
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Not sure why referencing Ayn Rand spouting strawmen is relevant here.
    - dmfdmf 11y ago
      Because one of her points was that under Communism, Boris Spassky's talent was "a horrendous waste of genius". Don't fret, my comment was not meant for you.
- rm445 11y ago
  But the father's thesis was that hothousing produces geniuses on demand. Not that they're a precious find that needs to be directed to where they can be most use. By using a subject that was well-known, widely available, cheap and popular, and very well-measured, he increased his chances of achieving his goal - convincing the world that his methods would get results out of bright kids so good that they would appear as geniuses to the world at large. He seems to have wildly succeeded, and the world just kinda shrugged.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I don't know if every child is a potential genius but I do know that not every child reaches their full potential. Its interesting that Polgar felt Chess was the ultimate expression of intelligence, why not mathematics? Or language? As a parent when your children are young, I encourage you to encourage their curiosity in a healthy way, which leads to a life of wondering just why things are the way they are, and investing those questions in a productive way. Later in life its hard to rekindle the spark of curiosity, and early in life its easy to extinguish it.
- chdir 11y ago
  > Later in life its hard to rekindle the spark of curiosity, and early in life its easy to extinguish it Can this be backed up statistically ? Can a born genius have their spark extinguished by adverse circumstances or poor parenting ? I feel the exceptional ones march on their way to genius despite family support.
  - qrendel 11y ago
    Seems a bit of a selection bias, in that no one who had their potential severely and permanently reduced from a young age is likely to be recognized as a genius. So you of course only end up recognizing "genius" in people who overcame whatever obstacles were presented them, or else had few to overcome in the first place. The best example I can think of is Chris Langan[1], though we only know who he is because he maintained some form of recognizable intellect in spite of his upbringing. Had his beatings led to debilitating psychological problems, brain damage, homelessness, or other things of that nature, we wouldn't be recognizing him as someone held back by his early childhood. Which sort of shows the inherent selection bias. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    It would be challenging to design such an experiment for obvious reasons. I've observed the cohort of children associated with my friends. Nearly all the kids started out quite curious, but by middle school there was definite segmentation, and by college it was very much a smaller subset who were still out there asking questions and following up on the answers. I will also add that it is the curse of parenting that you cannot re-do the experiment. And so every choice you make, strict/lenient, forbid/allow, debate/fiat, talk/not-talk is full of questions about whether or not it would be better for your child if you acted in a different way. It is really stressful on the parents.
bjwbell 11y ago
I think it was Steve Sailer that first said preferences are important. In climbing it's commonly thought most people could climb 5.12 with intense training. But not many actually do because few enjoy training that hard. I saw this first hand, I was naturally a much better climber than my friend but I didn't enjoy training or climbing as much. After a couple years he's putting up first ascents. To give a shout out he's http://vividrea1ity.blogspot.com/ http://vividrea1ity.blogspot.com/
ausjke 11y ago
In summary, a kid has IQ > 120 with hard working attitude(e.g. 10000 hour rule) that guarantees he/she will be a genius. The keyword seems like the 120 of IQ which is a minimum requirement.
- pcurve 11y ago
  120 is 90 percentile. Basically average pharmD IQ.
Zigurd 11y ago
What I see here is a choice to bring up a child in an environment of an elite pursuit, in this case grandmaster-level chess. If that brings them joy, fine. But it is not much different from children raised to perform at elite levels in sport, music, dance, etc. If they are happy that way, then good. But if they are not happy it is an avoidable misery. If you have given your child the gift of a life of the mind, you really do not have to press them to be able to reach elite performance levels in the domains where, if you haven't sacrificed a normal-ish childhood, you have missed the boat. If you avoid doing that, you give them the chance to excel in areas where one can have lifelong participation and growth.
- rm445 11y ago
  If it were possible to create consistently world-class results in disparate fields by early specialisation and intensive training, could the world afford to ignore it? A decrease in total childhood happiness would be gladly accepted by every nation if more top performers in every field could be created. Perhaps one instead could hothouse a child in the life of the mind and produce a world-class young generalist, with the capacity to become a world-class specialist in a pursuit that makes them happy. I'm sure that happens a lot on an individual level. And indeed that could describe the goals of public education systems. But that's not exactly encouraging. We seem to have methods of intensive training that produce world-class prodigies in the arts and in competitive arenas - musical performers, athletes and chess. Academic hothousing seems a much more mixed bag.
thewarrior 11y ago
gwern is one of the most knowledgeable people on this subject as he keeps abreast of all the latest research. I'm wondering what his take on this article his.
thewarrior 11y ago
That some people became grandmasters in as little as 3000 hours is enough to question the assertion that it's all about nurture. There's a limit to perseverance. Some may be blessed with an extraordinary amount of it but most aren't. So you're much more likely to keep at it if you progress fast enough to achieve 1 % percentile performance in say 3000 hours instead of 10,000. 3000 hours is 5 hours a day of practice for 3.5 years. We all have observed how some just rocket ahead .
brador 11y ago
Surround them with intelligent people who like talking. Take a visit to a children's area in a hospital if you want to meet some hyper intelligent children with less intelligent parents. They soak in an amazing vocabulary from being around doctors all day.

Bringing Up Genius

49 points by akbarnama 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

hugh4 11y ago

To the extent that chess players can really be considered geniuses, it seems like a horrendous waste of genius.

dmfdmf 11y ago
Perhaps... it is just an escape http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/01/bobby-fischer-ayn-rand-open-letter-to.html http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/01/bobby-fischer-ayn-...
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  Not sure why referencing Ayn Rand spouting strawmen is relevant here.
  - dmfdmf 11y ago
    Because one of her points was that under Communism, Boris Spassky's talent was "a horrendous waste of genius". Don't fret, my comment was not meant for you.
rm445 11y ago
But the father's thesis was that hothousing produces geniuses on demand. Not that they're a precious find that needs to be directed to where they can be most use. By using a subject that was well-known, widely available, cheap and popular, and very well-measured, he increased his chances of achieving his goal - convincing the world that his methods would get results out of bright kids so good that they would appear as geniuses to the world at large. He seems to have wildly succeeded, and the world just kinda shrugged.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I don't know if every child is a potential genius but I do know that not every child reaches their full potential. Its interesting that Polgar felt Chess was the ultimate expression of intelligence, why not mathematics? Or language? As a parent when your children are young, I encourage you to encourage their curiosity in a healthy way, which leads to a life of wondering just why things are the way they are, and investing those questions in a productive way. Later in life its hard to rekindle the spark of curiosity, and early in life its easy to extinguish it.

chdir 11y ago
> Later in life its hard to rekindle the spark of curiosity, and early in life its easy to extinguish it Can this be backed up statistically ? Can a born genius have their spark extinguished by adverse circumstances or poor parenting ? I feel the exceptional ones march on their way to genius despite family support.
- qrendel 11y ago
  Seems a bit of a selection bias, in that no one who had their potential severely and permanently reduced from a young age is likely to be recognized as a genius. So you of course only end up recognizing "genius" in people who overcame whatever obstacles were presented them, or else had few to overcome in the first place. The best example I can think of is Chris Langan[1], though we only know who he is because he maintained some form of recognizable intellect in spite of his upbringing. Had his beatings led to debilitating psychological problems, brain damage, homelessness, or other things of that nature, we wouldn't be recognizing him as someone held back by his early childhood. Which sort of shows the inherent selection bias. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  It would be challenging to design such an experiment for obvious reasons. I've observed the cohort of children associated with my friends. Nearly all the kids started out quite curious, but by middle school there was definite segmentation, and by college it was very much a smaller subset who were still out there asking questions and following up on the answers. I will also add that it is the curse of parenting that you cannot re-do the experiment. And so every choice you make, strict/lenient, forbid/allow, debate/fiat, talk/not-talk is full of questions about whether or not it would be better for your child if you acted in a different way. It is really stressful on the parents.

bjwbell 11y ago

I think it was Steve Sailer that first said preferences are important. In climbing it's commonly thought most people could climb 5.12 with intense training. But not many actually do because few enjoy training that hard. I saw this first hand, I was naturally a much better climber than my friend but I didn't enjoy training or climbing as much. After a couple years he's putting up first ascents. To give a shout out he's http://vividrea1ity.blogspot.com/ http://vividrea1ity.blogspot.com/

ausjke 11y ago

In summary, a kid has IQ > 120 with hard working attitude(e.g. 10000 hour rule) that guarantees he/she will be a genius. The keyword seems like the 120 of IQ which is a minimum requirement.

pcurve 11y ago
120 is 90 percentile. Basically average pharmD IQ.

Zigurd 11y ago

What I see here is a choice to bring up a child in an environment of an elite pursuit, in this case grandmaster-level chess. If that brings them joy, fine. But it is not much different from children raised to perform at elite levels in sport, music, dance, etc. If they are happy that way, then good. But if they are not happy it is an avoidable misery. If you have given your child the gift of a life of the mind, you really do not have to press them to be able to reach elite performance levels in the domains where, if you haven't sacrificed a normal-ish childhood, you have missed the boat. If you avoid doing that, you give them the chance to excel in areas where one can have lifelong participation and growth.

rm445 11y ago
If it were possible to create consistently world-class results in disparate fields by early specialisation and intensive training, could the world afford to ignore it? A decrease in total childhood happiness would be gladly accepted by every nation if more top performers in every field could be created. Perhaps one instead could hothouse a child in the life of the mind and produce a world-class young generalist, with the capacity to become a world-class specialist in a pursuit that makes them happy. I'm sure that happens a lot on an individual level. And indeed that could describe the goals of public education systems. But that's not exactly encouraging. We seem to have methods of intensive training that produce world-class prodigies in the arts and in competitive arenas - musical performers, athletes and chess. Academic hothousing seems a much more mixed bag.

thewarrior 11y ago

gwern is one of the most knowledgeable people on this subject as he keeps abreast of all the latest research. I'm wondering what his take on this article his.

thewarrior 11y ago

That some people became grandmasters in as little as 3000 hours is enough to question the assertion that it's all about nurture. There's a limit to perseverance. Some may be blessed with an extraordinary amount of it but most aren't. So you're much more likely to keep at it if you progress fast enough to achieve 1 % percentile performance in say 3000 hours instead of 10,000. 3000 hours is 5 hours a day of practice for 3.5 years. We all have observed how some just rocket ahead .

brador 11y ago

Surround them with intelligent people who like talking. Take a visit to a children's area in a hospital if you want to meet some hyper intelligent children with less intelligent parents. They soak in an amazing vocabulary from being around doctors all day.