Hacker News Reader

Comment by datashovel | Hacker News Reader

It is my (probably controversial) belief that humans can teach other humans how to become geniuses. We just haven't figured out how to yet.

With one caveat: My guess is intervention probably has to start early.

View on HN

I strongly agree. And I have seen it anecdotally a few times in how we have developed entry-level employees and interns who are now top of their field (e.g. One intern is now the VP of design at major tech company). I think the innate talent is in everyone and can be tapped simply by putting them into an environment where they are pushed beyond what might be considered a limit in other areas (even indirectly like through social pressure to keep up with other talented colleagues).

Malcolm Gladwell pointed out how you will see clusters of geniuses emerge from the same time in the same neighborhoods and I think this supports the above as well.

I don't think it's limited to young people either, though it certainly helps. An established reputation will prevent people from being pushed beyond their limits.

No shortage of challenging/stimulating environments out there for a variety of skills. Environments clearly matter too. It's more interesting to assess what conditions produce well-adjusted members of society who respond well to being pushed beyond their limits. Can we build uncommon resiliency in people without stunting other aspects?

That depends on your definition of genius, which seems to differ widely from mine but also if one takes "genius" to mean someone who does things a non-genius would not be able to do.

There have been attempts in recent years to roll back and debase the definition of genius to be more compatible with egalitarianism (especially in parts of Europe) and the tenet of homogeneity but this is not what genius originally stood for.

Fabian Tasano writes: "Regarding the version of “genius” that is currently in retreat but still occasionally used: many people seem to have a simplistic idea of what it takes to be one. According to one popular model, all that is required is an increase in the magnitude of certain qualities which everyone already possesses in some measure. Make the particular qualities pronounced enough, and you get to genius. But a better way to understand the concept — assuming we’re applying the word to (say) Gauss or Picasso, rather than John Cleese or Wayne Rooney — may be that a genius has a particular capacity, which on a certain level can seem obvious or unremarkable, but which no one else has. A genius, on this understanding, is a person uniquely capable of making a leap ‘off the path’. With hindsight the leap may seem simple or obvious, but at the time no one else was, apparently, capable of making it. A potential leap of this kind is made possible by preceding leaps. Nevertheless its actual occurrence may go on not happening for decades. During that time there may be clear pointers towards it. Yet it is not until a genius comes along that the leap actually happens."

I could not agree more with this. Alan Kay also outlines an extremely similar point of view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvmTSpJU-Xc

Also see his blue/red world metaphor.

I think it's more controversial to suggest the opposite: that mental ability is innate

Mental ability is innate. I think his point was that is also plastic. Perhaps even low IQ individuals can develop genius level ability on a specific topic or function in life or even brought up to the IQ of someone capable of success in grad school.

His claim is controversial in scientific circles/studies that go against it but the science is controversial in general "anyone has the ability to be anyone" thinking. I highly suggest reading Stephen Pinker's A blank slate.

I don't know any evidence to support that idea. My frustration is that too many people are labeled, pigeonholed and also don't have the resources to ever do their best. Do we underestimate our potential, sure, but we're not all in the 99th percentile.

However my guess is real nootropics won't take another century to get here. We may all be smarter someday.

The basic principles are not a great mystery; actually implementing them is hard though. The best ways we know take a lot of time and dedication (e.g. hours per day of 1:1 or 1:few full-attention effort from an adult tutor who is both a subject expert and an expert teacher), more than we’re usually willing or able to spend on a child. Take a look at the Polgar sisters.

The Polgar sisters are not geniuses in any general sense of that word.

Interesting enough as that "experiment" may have been, it only proved that certain persons of a certain background that includes genetic history unknown to us, can reach high degrees of competence in one __specialized__ field. Chess is also particularly well-coordinated with years of repetitive practice and dedication, but genius? I think not.

You could replace chess with playing the piano even, and the outcome would be the same.

After having interacted with many people who were called “geniuses” in various settings (e.g. Nobel Prize winners, Fields medalists, best-selling novelists, at least a half dozen MacArthur “genius” grant recipients ...), I don’t consider “genius in any general sense” to be a real thing. YMMV.

Look at my previous post for a definition of genius that makes more sense and a possible explanation for its current debasement.

Laszlo Polgar figured out how to teach kids to become chess geniuses. Might be a start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com