6 ms·

We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost it: “It has been pointed out that we no longer have infant and child prodigies, or that at least they are now much

by DavidSJ 15y ago

We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost it: “It has been pointed out that we no longer have infant and child prodigies, or that at least they are now much rarer than before. … We sacrificed genius for our present interest in homogeneity. We began to dislike precocity in children and to dislike children themselves. Our insistence on uniformity began the modern oppression of children.” —Richard Farson, Birthrights

tomjen3 15y ago
And it was done deliberately, systematically and with full (or nearly full) understanding of the consequences. At least if you believe John Taylor Gatto. I would like to write him of as a loony, but having read his book (available for free http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm) that isn't as easy as I assumed it would be. Thats not saying that he is right, only that he makes a damn good and interesting argument.
- DavidSJ 15y ago
  Whatever the initial motivations, the system only persists due to the continued support of the masses, who genuinely (and misguidedly) believe it to be the best thing for children. It's a tragedy, not a conspiracy.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  The free version of the book is the first edition. If you're going to take the time to read it, you might as well just buy the newest edition on Amazon, which has (from what I hear) eliminated a few mistakes.
patrickyeon 15y ago
I feel like there's a common thread in many conversations I have these days, which can be described well by "We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost it." It's the parents that push their kids to be measurably good at all the things they've been told geniuses are good at. It's the students who go to university because that's how they're told they will get good jobs, and not due to a thirst for learning. It's the managers that try to create a workplace that has some superificial resemblance to another place that has turned out great work, and then expect that they've flipped on the genius switch. We're so used to measuring and planning everything, that when we decide we want 'genius' all we think to do is measure what we can in other instances, and force that to happen. I suspect it's very hard for a lot of people to believe that (a) it takes all kinds of un-measured hard work, (b) there are so many more aspects than they can think of that go into creating genius, and (c) there's a measure of luck to it and they can't control everything. Back to the topic of the article though, I see parents who believe there is a causal link from Good School --> 'Good Job', and see a link to Good School from all these things 'geniuses have been known to do.'
- kenjackson 15y ago
  With everything you said -- isn't that the way you're supposed to do things? Seriously. You see what others do who are successful and you try to understand what it is and replicate it and improve on it. It's not about domesticating genius, but its about understanding and application. And last time I checked the ONLY scientific method we have for understanding something is measurement.
  - patrickyeon 15y ago
    Basically, applying the scientific method here would be a great idea, but keep in mind that correlation != causation. Just because many geniuses you've heard of could pick up a difficult instrument and learn it quickly, it does not follow that learning to play an instrument is a necessary step towards geniushood. The idea that I latched on to "We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost it" suggests that parents are shaping kids that exhibit secondary characteristics of genius, but we've failed to nurture the spark that pushes someone to do amazing things. I offer the hypothesis that an important factor towards developing very high talent in a field is a love for it and an opportunity to explore within it, make mistakes, do "some costructive play." If this is true, it seems quite possible to me that training someone to exhibit all kinds of secondary signs of genius (that they may well enjoy, but not truly love) can take up time and energy that they might otherwise dedicate to developing their true genius. Sometimes genius isn't where you expect it. What if the next Jim Hensons are currently practicing tuba between lacrosse games and advanced calculus courses, admonished whenever they "waste their time playing" and painting their WarHammer models?
    - ScottBurson 15y ago
      I think you nailed it. In a world in which so much routine work has been and continues to be automated, originality is becoming more and more essential for success. But originality can't be taught -- it has to be nurtured. Yes, in order to do original work, you need mastery of a medium, whether that be lacrosse, tuba, or mathematics (to borrow your examples). But people think that the mastery is the whole point, when it's actually just the toolchest. Without originality to guide the use of those tools, you're just a mechanic -- and we don't need many mechanics anymore.
coldarchon 15y ago
There is something behind this that people from genetics and evolutionists don't talk about and even don't want you to know. The reason why there are so many men in our history who were prodigies is very simple, and not a result of female oppression. The genes of men are much more randomly activated/mutated/spread than those of women. Why? Because changing the genes of women could be dangerous to giving birth or raise children. As men can have much more children than women, let's call the reason "nature", nature decided that women have a dense distribution of qualities and men a very high variance. You can see this in the distribution of shoe sizes, the number of men with small feet is the same as those with big feet. And women all have the same, ask Al Bundy. Now if men have a much higher variance in their genes, chances are this affects their way to understand problems and therefor the huge mass of different approaches and a wider spectrum will produce solutions in a collective much faster than in the dense normal distribution of women. If we now keep on insisting that all humans are the same and no one is different and therefor better at understanding a specific problem, we might never solve a problem if it's not in the solution space of our normal distribution of the average human. (If you think I said women are less smarter than men you did not understand me. Women and men are equally smart with the same median, but there are more idiots and geniuses amongst men)
sliverstorm 15y ago
How do we even know that's true? First, I've never really believed in the idea of a child prodigy, (partially a consequence to my subscription to the "10,000 hour expert" rule) and second in a hypercompetitive world what once looked like a Touch from God now looks like every other kid in their class.

by DavidSJ 15y ago

tomjen3 15y ago

And it was done deliberately, systematically and with full (or nearly full) understanding of the consequences. At least if you believe John Taylor Gatto. I would like to write him of as a loony, but having read his book (available for free http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm) that isn't as easy as I assumed it would be. Thats not saying that he is right, only that he makes a damn good and interesting argument.

DavidSJ 15y ago
Whatever the initial motivations, the system only persists due to the continued support of the masses, who genuinely (and misguidedly) believe it to be the best thing for children. It's a tragedy, not a conspiracy.
Alex3917 15y ago
The free version of the book is the first edition. If you're going to take the time to read it, you might as well just buy the newest edition on Amazon, which has (from what I hear) eliminated a few mistakes.

patrickyeon 15y ago

I feel like there's a common thread in many conversations I have these days, which can be described well by "We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost it." It's the parents that push their kids to be measurably good at all the things they've been told geniuses are good at. It's the students who go to university because that's how they're told they will get good jobs, and not due to a thirst for learning. It's the managers that try to create a workplace that has some superificial resemblance to another place that has turned out great work, and then expect that they've flipped on the genius switch. We're so used to measuring and planning everything, that when we decide we want 'genius' all we think to do is measure what we can in other instances, and force that to happen. I suspect it's very hard for a lot of people to believe that (a) it takes all kinds of un-measured hard work, (b) there are so many more aspects than they can think of that go into creating genius, and (c) there's a measure of luck to it and they can't control everything. Back to the topic of the article though, I see parents who believe there is a causal link from Good School --> 'Good Job', and see a link to Good School from all these things 'geniuses have been known to do.'

kenjackson 15y ago
With everything you said -- isn't that the way you're supposed to do things? Seriously. You see what others do who are successful and you try to understand what it is and replicate it and improve on it. It's not about domesticating genius, but its about understanding and application. And last time I checked the ONLY scientific method we have for understanding something is measurement.
- patrickyeon 15y ago
  Basically, applying the scientific method here would be a great idea, but keep in mind that correlation != causation. Just because many geniuses you've heard of could pick up a difficult instrument and learn it quickly, it does not follow that learning to play an instrument is a necessary step towards geniushood. The idea that I latched on to "We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost it" suggests that parents are shaping kids that exhibit secondary characteristics of genius, but we've failed to nurture the spark that pushes someone to do amazing things. I offer the hypothesis that an important factor towards developing very high talent in a field is a love for it and an opportunity to explore within it, make mistakes, do "some costructive play." If this is true, it seems quite possible to me that training someone to exhibit all kinds of secondary signs of genius (that they may well enjoy, but not truly love) can take up time and energy that they might otherwise dedicate to developing their true genius. Sometimes genius isn't where you expect it. What if the next Jim Hensons are currently practicing tuba between lacrosse games and advanced calculus courses, admonished whenever they "waste their time playing" and painting their WarHammer models?
  - ScottBurson 15y ago
    I think you nailed it. In a world in which so much routine work has been and continues to be automated, originality is becoming more and more essential for success. But originality can't be taught -- it has to be nurtured. Yes, in order to do original work, you need mastery of a medium, whether that be lacrosse, tuba, or mathematics (to borrow your examples). But people think that the mastery is the whole point, when it's actually just the toolchest. Without originality to guide the use of those tools, you're just a mechanic -- and we don't need many mechanics anymore.

coldarchon 15y ago

There is something behind this that people from genetics and evolutionists don't talk about and even don't want you to know. The reason why there are so many men in our history who were prodigies is very simple, and not a result of female oppression. The genes of men are much more randomly activated/mutated/spread than those of women. Why? Because changing the genes of women could be dangerous to giving birth or raise children. As men can have much more children than women, let's call the reason "nature", nature decided that women have a dense distribution of qualities and men a very high variance. You can see this in the distribution of shoe sizes, the number of men with small feet is the same as those with big feet. And women all have the same, ask Al Bundy. Now if men have a much higher variance in their genes, chances are this affects their way to understand problems and therefor the huge mass of different approaches and a wider spectrum will produce solutions in a collective much faster than in the dense normal distribution of women. If we now keep on insisting that all humans are the same and no one is different and therefor better at understanding a specific problem, we might never solve a problem if it's not in the solution space of our normal distribution of the average human. (If you think I said women are less smarter than men you did not understand me. Women and men are equally smart with the same median, but there are more idiots and geniuses amongst men)

sliverstorm 15y ago

How do we even know that's true? First, I've never really believed in the idea of a child prodigy, (partially a consequence to my subscription to the "10,000 hour expert" rule) and second in a hypercompetitive world what once looked like a Touch from God now looks like every other kid in their class.