7 ms·

Genius authors, filmmakers, musicians and other talented people are really interesting me. Can scientists take a 20-40 year old person with an average upbringi

Genius authors, filmmakers, musicians and other talented people are really interesting me. Can scientists take a 20-40 year old person with an average upbringing and create the next Picasso or Stanley Kubrick by showing and training them on a ton of art? Almost like the data that was used to train ChatGPT in a way. Or do human brains only soak up information like a sponge when we’re 0-5 year old and it’s impossible for an adult to go from average to genius?

escapedmoose 4y ago
I’m not sure how you define genius, but there are some damn brilliant painters who didn’t start until they had reached retirement age. So many that it’s practically a cliche.
nullsense 4y ago
>it’s impossible for an adult to go from average to genius? Pretty much.
331c8c71 4y ago
> Can scientists take a 20-40 year old person with an average upbringing and create the next Picasso or Stanley Kubrick by showing and training them on a ton of art? Don't you think "showing and training" sounds very passive? No one can train a dispassionate person to become a proficient artist let alone genius. And scientists are unlikely to be particularly good at teaching art.
- comfypotato 4y ago
  My education was engineering, but I took plenty of science classes as accessories to some neuroscience research I did. Also, the art school was next to the engineering department, and I took advantage of this by taking art classes all along as an outlet for stress. I had multiple memorable conversations (anecdotal evidence, and potentially b.s. at that) with very successful folks in both pure art and pure science that suggested they are actually very similar at a fundamental level. I say pure in that these folks had spent lifetimes producing public art projects or research from grants. They only taught as a byproduct of their passions. The idea-generation phase of both industries essentially runs along the same tracts/fascicles/etc. in the brain. I even had a more eccentric professor suggest that the cutting edge of the art world actually mirrors that of science in that the same discoveries are conceptualized in tandem.
rowanG077 4y ago
I think that children don't really learn faster then an adult. It's just that step from nothing to 1 or 1 to 2 seems much larger then the step from 100 to 101. The prior is what children do. The latter what most adults do. A friend of mine is a private piano teacher. And he observed that most adults pick up Piano much faster then children. There is probably a bias since an adult going to learn the piano is intrinsically motivated while the children might be forced by their parents.
- Retric 4y ago
  Adults learning piano have far more piano adjacent skills they can leverage which makes it hard to directly compare them. Even children have quite a few skills that mean they aren’t going from 1 to 2, so much as 30 to 31. It’s the same reason people can pickup a 5th instrument so much faster than their first.
- nottorp 4y ago
  > There is probably a bias since an adult going to learn the piano is intrinsically motivated while the children might be forced by their parents. Goes for about everything. Sports too. Noticed it with martial arts classes. If you take kids, prepare for the unmotivated that are there because their parents send them.
- ryanklee 4y ago
  If you have ever witnessed a child learn to speak, I don't know how you could maintain such a thing. The rate of change is incredible. Even aside from that, which might be argued to be a biological oddity and explained by early development factors, take any active 8 year old and, yes, if you take any one domain, you might say that the rate of learning is in the same ballpark as an adult, but if you account for all domains within with that child is actively engaged, the total volume is again incredible and likely only comparable to the rate of learning of a gifted adult.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    I admit that language acquisition in early childhood(<5) is something adults cannot replicate. But afterwards children aren't any better at taken up new languages. I wouldn't say the total number of domains a child is actively engaged in is that high. I would be very surprised an adult could reasonably replicate that under similar conditions (no work, little to no chores, every day can be spend on only learning).
phyphy 4y ago
Aren't the brains most neuroplastic during the age 0-5?
raydiatian 4y ago
> Can scientists take a 20-40 year old person with an average upbringing and create the next Here’s how genius works: 1. Be obsessed, practice 8 hours a day. 2. Repeat daily until you succeed. Genes can only disqualify the most unfortunate of the genetic bell curve. SES could make it untenable on a greater rate. After that though, it’s a pretty fair race to achieve “genius,” And I can’t imagine more than a 10y variance on creating something prolific. But it’s you who has to put in the work and attention. Scientists can only brainwash you for obsession, and encourage you to exercise and be healthy.
- sinenomine 4y ago
  This stock feel-good advice has led millions into depression.
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    I’m sorry you feel like anything I’ve said is (1) feel-good or (2) advice. Also don’t know if you’ve noticed but “genius” and depression sort of casually fuck each others brains out on the regular.
- kbelder 4y ago
  That's the way to get pretty good at something. Perhaps even master. But I don't think that is so likely to result in genius, at least how most people think of genius.
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    > But I don't think that is so likely to result in genius, at least how most people think of genius. Ignoring how ignorant it is to ever claim you know "how most people think of" anything... The original thread referenced Kubrick and Picasso: intellectual, hardworking people. Unless your definition of genius means it is some innate, genetic predisposition for a subject, I'll first refer you back to my word "obsession" and also point out that if we've dwindled down to "IQ" as the lone factor, then what is the fucking point. "Geniuses" are only relevant for their creative outputs. There are plenty of "high IQ, high promise" MacArthur fellows that don't even make a splash, so who cares about their semi-formal "genius" title. The "genius" (person) takes the inkling of a "genius" idea and successfully carries it through to completion. My argument is that we all have genius ideas, and none of the characteristic problem-solving knowledge/infrastructure/time to realize those genius ideas. In order to do that, you've got to know the medium, completely, that is part of genius. This is why Picasso was able to make the strange art that he did. He knew how to precisely capture subjects, lighting. He got bored with it, and wanted to see what else there was. He once said "the chief enemy of creativity is good sense." He only knew that once he studied the classics thoroughly. You see the same story with Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock. Herbie was getting frustrated with what he was playing on tour with Miles in the 60's. Even though it was still masterful, it was boring Herbie to tears. Miles leans over during one of his shows and says "don't play the butter notes". The fuck does that mean? It doesn't mean anything, it's practically an oblique strategy. But Herbie knew everything, and so he took this to mean don't play the 3 in a chord, because it gives the chord too much certainty in its meaning. It solved Herbie's problem. You hear Jonah Hill talking about Martin Scorsese in the exact same way: "Scorsese is a genius because here's a guy a who can walk on set, be handed any logistics blocker, and we're all moving again in under five minutes." How do you get mastery of a subject so that you can solve problems at the highest level? You grind. and grind. and grind. Because you are obsessed. And then you get lucky that you have a genius idea that touches people. So yeah, mastery, genius, they're the same thing, but the genius part is whatever society heralds as relevant.

escapedmoose 4y ago

I’m not sure how you define genius, but there are some damn brilliant painters who didn’t start until they had reached retirement age. So many that it’s practically a cliche.

nullsense 4y ago

>it’s impossible for an adult to go from average to genius? Pretty much.

331c8c71 4y ago

> Can scientists take a 20-40 year old person with an average upbringing and create the next Picasso or Stanley Kubrick by showing and training them on a ton of art? Don't you think "showing and training" sounds very passive? No one can train a dispassionate person to become a proficient artist let alone genius. And scientists are unlikely to be particularly good at teaching art.

comfypotato 4y ago
My education was engineering, but I took plenty of science classes as accessories to some neuroscience research I did. Also, the art school was next to the engineering department, and I took advantage of this by taking art classes all along as an outlet for stress. I had multiple memorable conversations (anecdotal evidence, and potentially b.s. at that) with very successful folks in both pure art and pure science that suggested they are actually very similar at a fundamental level. I say pure in that these folks had spent lifetimes producing public art projects or research from grants. They only taught as a byproduct of their passions. The idea-generation phase of both industries essentially runs along the same tracts/fascicles/etc. in the brain. I even had a more eccentric professor suggest that the cutting edge of the art world actually mirrors that of science in that the same discoveries are conceptualized in tandem.

rowanG077 4y ago

I think that children don't really learn faster then an adult. It's just that step from nothing to 1 or 1 to 2 seems much larger then the step from 100 to 101. The prior is what children do. The latter what most adults do. A friend of mine is a private piano teacher. And he observed that most adults pick up Piano much faster then children. There is probably a bias since an adult going to learn the piano is intrinsically motivated while the children might be forced by their parents.

Retric 4y ago
Adults learning piano have far more piano adjacent skills they can leverage which makes it hard to directly compare them. Even children have quite a few skills that mean they aren’t going from 1 to 2, so much as 30 to 31. It’s the same reason people can pickup a 5th instrument so much faster than their first.
nottorp 4y ago
> There is probably a bias since an adult going to learn the piano is intrinsically motivated while the children might be forced by their parents. Goes for about everything. Sports too. Noticed it with martial arts classes. If you take kids, prepare for the unmotivated that are there because their parents send them.
ryanklee 4y ago
If you have ever witnessed a child learn to speak, I don't know how you could maintain such a thing. The rate of change is incredible. Even aside from that, which might be argued to be a biological oddity and explained by early development factors, take any active 8 year old and, yes, if you take any one domain, you might say that the rate of learning is in the same ballpark as an adult, but if you account for all domains within with that child is actively engaged, the total volume is again incredible and likely only comparable to the rate of learning of a gifted adult.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  I admit that language acquisition in early childhood(<5) is something adults cannot replicate. But afterwards children aren't any better at taken up new languages. I wouldn't say the total number of domains a child is actively engaged in is that high. I would be very surprised an adult could reasonably replicate that under similar conditions (no work, little to no chores, every day can be spend on only learning).

phyphy 4y ago

Aren't the brains most neuroplastic during the age 0-5?

raydiatian 4y ago

> Can scientists take a 20-40 year old person with an average upbringing and create the next Here’s how genius works: 1. Be obsessed, practice 8 hours a day. 2. Repeat daily until you succeed. Genes can only disqualify the most unfortunate of the genetic bell curve. SES could make it untenable on a greater rate. After that though, it’s a pretty fair race to achieve “genius,” And I can’t imagine more than a 10y variance on creating something prolific. But it’s you who has to put in the work and attention. Scientists can only brainwash you for obsession, and encourage you to exercise and be healthy.

sinenomine 4y ago
This stock feel-good advice has led millions into depression.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  I’m sorry you feel like anything I’ve said is (1) feel-good or (2) advice. Also don’t know if you’ve noticed but “genius” and depression sort of casually fuck each others brains out on the regular.
kbelder 4y ago
That's the way to get pretty good at something. Perhaps even master. But I don't think that is so likely to result in genius, at least how most people think of genius.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  > But I don't think that is so likely to result in genius, at least how most people think of genius. Ignoring how ignorant it is to ever claim you know "how most people think of" anything... The original thread referenced Kubrick and Picasso: intellectual, hardworking people. Unless your definition of genius means it is some innate, genetic predisposition for a subject, I'll first refer you back to my word "obsession" and also point out that if we've dwindled down to "IQ" as the lone factor, then what is the fucking point. "Geniuses" are only relevant for their creative outputs. There are plenty of "high IQ, high promise" MacArthur fellows that don't even make a splash, so who cares about their semi-formal "genius" title. The "genius" (person) takes the inkling of a "genius" idea and successfully carries it through to completion. My argument is that we all have genius ideas, and none of the characteristic problem-solving knowledge/infrastructure/time to realize those genius ideas. In order to do that, you've got to know the medium, completely, that is part of genius. This is why Picasso was able to make the strange art that he did. He knew how to precisely capture subjects, lighting. He got bored with it, and wanted to see what else there was. He once said "the chief enemy of creativity is good sense." He only knew that once he studied the classics thoroughly. You see the same story with Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock. Herbie was getting frustrated with what he was playing on tour with Miles in the 60's. Even though it was still masterful, it was boring Herbie to tears. Miles leans over during one of his shows and says "don't play the butter notes". The fuck does that mean? It doesn't mean anything, it's practically an oblique strategy. But Herbie knew everything, and so he took this to mean don't play the 3 in a chord, because it gives the chord too much certainty in its meaning. It solved Herbie's problem. You hear Jonah Hill talking about Martin Scorsese in the exact same way: "Scorsese is a genius because here's a guy a who can walk on set, be handed any logistics blocker, and we're all moving again in under five minutes." How do you get mastery of a subject so that you can solve problems at the highest level? You grind. and grind. and grind. Because you are obsessed. And then you get lucky that you have a genius idea that touches people. So yeah, mastery, genius, they're the same thing, but the genius part is whatever society heralds as relevant.