The following questions have been asked in reference to "The roots of creativity and genius":
Education is indeed targeted at problem solving
Question:
I
think that the purpose of education is not to improve our problem
solving ability, but to improve our ability to function in society. How
can slapping a child who wants to eat a cake before dinner enhance its
problem solving?
Answer:
Problem solving is understood here strictly in
computational terms. Every task can be represented as a computational
problem. All our life is based on computing
"What to do next?". If you compare a child's brain to a computer, the act of slapping can be compared to adding a new rule
"No cake before dinner". In the future, this rule can be changed to a more sophisticated form (e.g.
"Foods of high glycemic index are not recommended before the main meal due to
...", etc.). This rule can be used in problem solving. For example, the most
straightforward problem could be "Shall I eat this cake now?", and a more sophisticated problem could be
"Which restaurant should I choose tonight?".
In the latter
case, the same rule would be evoked to solve the problem. Answering
moral questions can also be represented in terms of problem solving. We
function well in the society if our computing brain is good at solving
puzzles relevant in social situations, and not only
Problem solving may involve a varying degree of creativity
Question:
What is the difference between problem solving and creativity? Those terms are used often but were never clearly defined
Answer:
Imagine a labyrinth. In problem solving, you know
exactly where you want to get. You will apply rules stored in your
memory to
navigate through the labyrinth with an effort to reach the
predetermined destination. In pure creativity, you do not know what you
want to accomplish or where you want to get. You may just stray through
the labyrinth in hope of finding something valuable. In real life,
problem solving will involve a degree of creativity which is
proportional to indeterminacy of the reasoning path (i.e. the degree of
your derivation or application of inference rules being
non-deterministic). If you have to answer the question:
What is the value of 6x7?, you will deterministically retrieve a fact from your memory:
6x7=42. This is a pure recall (or fact-based problem solving). If you have to answer:
What is the value of 16x17?, you will deterministically retrieve facts (e.g.
6x7 = 42). Then you will deterministically retrieve simple multiplication and addition rules to conclude that
160+70+42=272. This is rule-based problem solving. If
you have to solve a differential
equation, you will deterministically retrieve the rules and then you
may start non-deterministically traversing the decision tree: you may
have more than one path to traverse. Solving such non-deterministic
problems requires creativity (i.e. tricks to efficiently move inside
the labyrinth). This is
creative problem solving. If you have to invent a new
marketing slogan for your company, the degree of creativity will
increase further. Your search space will be nearly infinite. Luckily,
your associative brain will quickly find a couple of plausible
associations and you may "create" the answer in seconds. Then you can
further iterate over various branches
of your search tree or try far-reaching "jumps" via association (see: Ideafisher
and incremental reading). The power of knowledge in problem solving is that the more knowledge you have,
the less creativity you need, but the more creativity you are able to apply
IQ of the greatest geniuses
Question:
What is Judit Polgar's IQ?
How about other geniuses?
Answer:
Several sources indicate that
Judit Polgar's IQ might be around 170, but IQ data are notoriously misquoted and misleading.
See also:
http://www.surfonby.com/iqtest/iqfacts.html
http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Q&A/Q&A_2.htm
Multiple intelligences can be described with the computer metaphor as well (#5795)
Question:
You completely ignore Dr. Howard Gardner's multiple
intelligences and put emphasis on only two types of intelligence: linguistic and logical
Answer:
The model of a brain storing facts and rules used in problem solving encompasses most of multiple
intelligences. This goes far beyond the standard IQ which indeed has a linguistic
and logical bias. The interest of educators should focus on intelligence enhanced by expertise
(Definition 1).
The variety of classes of expertise is large enough for the need to
extract common factors that make training efficient. Spatial
intelligence is to logical intelligence as geometry is to logic. It
simply refers to a different substance (different facts and rules)
without changing the rules of engagement: training enhances skills in
all forms of human activity.
Kinesthetic intelligence may have a strong genetic underpinnings but
kinesthetic
training will also develop a set of new rules encoded in the neural
network of the motor system. The fact that these rules cannot be
verbalized does not detract from the applicability of the computer
metaphor and brain's programmability. Inter-personal intelligence, here
referred to as
social skills is a combination of an emotional profile of an
individual (Emotional IQ) and social expertise (facts and rules of
efficient social conduct). Musical expertise will combine "musical
intelligence" or "talent" and a battery of procedural and declarative
rules developed in the course of musical training, etc. The formula
based on storing new facts and rules in memory via training is
universal
Sex and race do not matter much for genius accomplishment
Question:
What is the link between sex, race and genius?
Answer:
IQ
tests, personality tests, SAT scores, etc., inevitably show differences
between race, ethnicity, family background, child care, sex, and even
religious beliefs in the family. However, the prescription for
accomplishing genius is the same (see:
Genius Checklist). Consequently, the differences may be important to psychologists, evolutionary biologists, ethnographers, etc. To
a young bright mind, the differences are of little concern and do not affect his
or her strategy for creative life
Geniuses create for a living
Question:
What does Genius do for living?
Answer:
Creativity
is naturally the most desirable way for geniuses to make their living.
During the Great Depression, even the brightest minds
found it difficult to get the most menial work. In Middle Ages, few
could live of creativity. Today, even in
lesser developed countries, geniuses can find great outlets for their
creativity on the net. The claim
"do not optimize for financial gain" must exclude cases where a
genius suffers by not having anything to put on the
dinner table. However, it is getting easier and easier with every
passing day to forgo financial concerns for people who
are well endowed intellectually. Creative jobs abound and may be found
half-a-globe away. The earlier you manage to do a full-steam creative
work for a living, the faster your will free your genius mind from
numerous limitations of the present world
Children with Down Syndrome have lower IQ
Question:
What is the IQ of people affected with Down Syndrome?
Answer:
The distribution of IQ among Down Syndrome patients is similar in its bell
shape to the normal population; however, the average is shifted by 50 points
downward (in pure forms of Down Syndrome). A relative Down Syndrome genius can
pass the borderline retarded range and match the low average IQ range. However,
educators dealing with Down Syndrome kids stress that IQ is not a good measure
of mental performance among these children
Brainstorming does not have to disrupt your schedule
Question:
How
do you reconcile the proposition of socially-based brainstorming on one
hand, with the asocial call to schedule-and-prioritize (including the
use of e-mail instead of a phone, etc.)?
Answer:
Due to an
ever increasing intellectual competition, future geniuses will probably
have to drive their
time-management skills to perfection. This will require careful
scheduling, prioritization and minimum disruption. However,
brainstorming may also be subject to planning.
Its only limitation is the coincidence of needs. Simply put, it is
harder to do synchronous planning for a group of individuals. Simple
techniques used for scheduling a tennis match can be used for
scheduling a brainstorming session. Technology can also come in handy,
in a brainstorming group, individuals ready for intense net-meeting
exchange can set up a readiness flag, and await the moment when their
readiness coincides with others in the same group. Last but not least,
"slow brainstorming" over e-mail is also extremely powerful
Being politically correct
Question:
Jobs simply sucked Wozniak's blood;
VisiCalc was
not the first
spreadsheet;
Edison was a thief of patents;
Bill Gates is no genius;
Evolution is just a theory;
Anti-globalization supporters are idiots;
Brain is far more than an expert system;
You should avoid
using the word holocaust;
Turing's homosexuality had no relevance; etc.
Answer:
Intentionally, this FAQ will avoid a debate on
political correctness
and/or matter of opinion. If you believe some historic facts have been
misrepresented, they will be corrected or alternative links provided.
Otherwise, all sideline stories should serve
only as examples or illustrations that help prop the main theses of the
article. The examples are not essential to the proof and as such will
be left for other forums to be debated
Effective work does not have to imply losing the joy of life
(just the opposite)
Question:
On
one hand you insist that the reason must take rein over the weak body,
but in another place you encourage music, art, movies, sports, and
religion because they are enjoyable! This is contradictory
Answer:
As
always, the key to resolving multicriterial optimization is
balance of proportions. You need to balance learning with creative
work. Specialist with general knowledge. Work and time for sleep or
sports. Work and family, etc. Optimally, you should find maximum joy in
things you must do rather than do things because they are enjoyable.
However, you cannot hop over your physiological and psycho-emotional
limitations. Let us consider an example: let us assume your day starts
with a breakfast during which you watch yesterday's
CBS News, and you follow that with repetitions in SuperMemo.
Let us say your time allocation for both activities is 80 minutes. You
may be tempted to go for maximum work (repetitions) and minimum
relaxation (breakfast). However, you will quickly discover that there
is an optimum allocation of
resources that maximizes your output. If you rush through a 5 min.
breakfast and interrupt watching the news in some interesting point,
your enthusiasm for repetitions may be less and ultimately your
learning results less impressive. If, on the other hand, you let the
breakfast raise the glucose level in your blood, let the caffeine of
your morning coffee kick in, and let an inspiring piece of science news
get you hungry for new knowledge, 25 min. allocation for breakfast may
appear more
efficient overall. Enjoyability is your guidance here. This example
shows that you may be unable to overcome such limitations as the speed
of food absorption or even more malleable factors such as psychogenic
motivation.
You got to listen to your body carefully. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
simply states that psychophysiological needs have to be taken into
account when managing your life and productivity. Doing things you love
is one of the simplest tricks you can use to increase productivity
without damaging your health.
With time, it is likely that you will find more and more joy in your
work, and
the borders between work, play, and relaxation will blend
Polgar experiment should rather be understood as a case study
Question:
I do not think Polgar experiment
was an scientific experiment. Can Laszlo Polgar reproduce his results? What are the control variables?
Answer:
Naturally, "Polgar experiment" does not
meet strict laboratory science standards. It should rather be
understood as a case study. Most of our knowledge of breeding genius is
based on case studies. We can study IQ and its correlations but it is
very difficult to measure human genius that goes far beyond dry IQ
measurements. This is why it is difficult to design experiments, and
this is why there is so much art mixed with science. Studying past and
present geniuses is still one of the best ways of understanding great
minds
Positive emotions do not have to be pleasant
Question:
Some negative emotions may have a positive effect. For example, feeling guilty after doing something wrong
Answer:
All emotions with a positive effect should be
called positive. This does not have to imply they should be
pleasurable. Feeling of guilt may result in a behavioral or attitudinal
correction. It may be unpleasant but it is likely to produce a positive
outcome. We will then classify guilt as a positive emotion. Naturally,
an individual with a sturdy hierarchy of value and high self-discipline
will rarely experience guilt or other punishing emotions. This is also
why the attitude, philosophical outlook, and self-discipline are so
important in developing a harmonious mind
A computer metaphor seems to be the simplest way of explaining the brain to non-technical people
Question:
Every
child knows that the brain operates as a neural network not as a serial
digital computer - your computer metaphor can lead to wrong
conclusions!
Answer:
30 years ago, it would be very difficult to
explain the way the brain works to an individual with little knowledge
of neuroscience or computing sciences. Today, most people seem to
understand the concepts of hardware and software. This opens a simple
avenue towards explaining the brain to an average man in the street.
The computer metaphor
partly solves the problem of the representation of a genius brain in an
average mind. A ball-and-stick model of the Solar System cannot be used
to encompass all properties of the planets (e.g. their size), but it
can excellently illustrate other properties (e.g. planetary
configurations). Similarly, the computer metaphor of the brain cannot
be used to illustrate memory formation (we all wish we could load
memories like we load software), but it excellently illustrates brain's
programmability and its limitations
Giftedness is not a precondition of genius
Question:
Dr
Ellen Winner clearly states that not all children are gifted: "Gifted children are biologically different. If you doubt it, try to raise someone's 90 IQ to
150"
Answer:
Giftedness
is strongly correlated with the rage to master and young man's early
IQ. However, it only makes developing genius easier. It is not a
precondition of genius. IQ scores are relative to the rest of the
population and should not be used as a measure of the potential to
achieve. This is also why there are not easily improved via training.
The formula for genius includes knowledge, its use and emotional IQ.
Many past geniuses such as Edison or Einstein would not have passed
today's giftedness criteria. Others would have immediately fallen into
ADHD category and be prescribed Ritalin (e.g. Tesla is a compelling
case). Seemingly opposite views of Dr
Winner and Dr Anders Ericsson of Florida State University are just two
poles of the
nature-vs.-nurture debate. Both are consistent with the theses
presented in
"The roots of genius and creativity"
Differences in personality underlie many correlations between sociopsychological variables
Question:
You
write that destructive personality factors are highly correlated with
each other, and that non-virgin girls are 6 times more likely to
attempt suicide or drink alcohol.
Do you think that being a non-virgin conditions these facts? Let's look
at the
logic:
A -> B but it doesn't mean that B -> A. I think
that in the case above it is quite the opposite, a girl practices
teenage sex due to family problems, not the other way around
Answer:
Factors
such as early pregnancy, alcoholism and suicide are strongly
correlated. This statement does not predicate on the actual causality,
which is always complex and subject to lengthy disputes among
sociopsychologists. One cause must be stressed though: genetically
determined neurohormonal profile of an individual. This is why
personality factor plays such a decisive role in developing genius. Low
serotonin individuals are more likely to suffer from depression, drug
addition, bouts of violence, etc. This makes for a powerful factor that
can underlie this and similar correlations
Delayed gratification skills develop slowly and are not a definite predictor of intellectual development
Question:
Your
statements on the importance of delayed gratification does not seem to
apply to me. I was an awful child. If I wanted a toy I would lie on the
street and scream as loud as I could until I got it. Today some people
call me a genius. Am I an exception to the rule?
Answer:
Delayed gratification skills develop very
slowly. In very young kids, they are almost non-existent. They are
strongly correlated with intellectual development. Your ability to put
up a fight for the toy might actually be an indicator of strongly
developed motivational circuits.
This could produce a welcome rage to master. Later, your rational brain
probably took reign over these motivational circuits to help you
persevere in whatever obstacles life throws at you. Yelling and
screaming for a toy clearly isn't a reason for worry as long as it is
gradually replaced with more efficient behavioral strategies
Geniuses can be found everywhere
Question:
In what professions can you find genius? Can a garbage collector be a genius?
Answer:
Geniuses
are everywhere. Naturally they tend to gravitate towards science and
other intellectually satisfying occupations. However, young geniuses in
a number of countries are simply locked in a struggle for survival,
which naturally limits their chances for full development. Some tend to
withdraw from social life (cf.
W. J. Sidis) and prefer
to do lowly jobs to free their minds from the limits of the rat race.
Others find excellent creative refuge in undemanding jobs and quiet
offices. If you meet a shoeshine boy, housewife, patent clerk, or a
shop assistant, do not jump to the conclusions!
Sheldon experiment is the state of the art in the area of understanding human needs
Question:
Sheldon
experiment is flawed: The students answered in socially accepted ways.
I can imagine they were afraid to admit to deriving satisfaction from
money
Answer:
Sheldon experiment has been published in the reputable
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published by the
American Psychological Association, which is the largest scientific and
professional association representing psychology in the world. Flawed
experimentation could not pass the impermeable peer-review barrier of
this journal. Sheldon uses state of the art methodology in terms of
theoretical background, data gathering, statistical analysis and the
assessment of experimental limitations. Sheldon admits that students of
psychology in the US and Korea are not representative to the entire
population. He also admits that factor analysis on the same emotional
components in reference to events spanning the lifetime might produce a
different result. He builds on Maslow's theories and other sound
theories of human needs, but props his argument up by a solid
experiment on a relatively large sample (several hundred students). In
conclusion, Sheldon's statements on what makes people happy can be
considered the state of art in this field of psychology. The original
article (including all tables and figures) is available from the
American Psychological Association website:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp802325.html
An idea does not have to be implemented to testify to creativity
Question:
Your
usability criterion for creativity is questionable. The works of
Babbage were proven workable today, but at his time they were useless.
Does it mean Babbage was not creative? The same refers to the later
discovered Turing's work on parallelism
Answer:
The
presented definition of creativity includes the usability criterion.
This refers to the idea, not to its implementation. Babbage's ideas
were highly creative and the fact that he was not able to implement
them does not detract from their usability.
All models are subject to misuse, which should not prevent modeling
Question:
I read
Rod Brooks say
(Brooks is director of the AI Lab at MIT):
The fact that we use the technology as a metaphor for ourselves really
locks us into the way we think. We think about human intelligence as
these neurons with these electrical signals. When I was a kid the brain
was a telephone switching network, then it became a digital computer,
then it became a massively parallel digital computer. I'm sure there's
a book out there now for kids that says the brain is the World Wide
Web, and everything's cross-linked
Answer:
Models may lock us in the way we think, but their
main purpose is just the opposite: to broaden our abstract reasoning.
Until a better popular-scientific explanatory model is found, the
computer metaphor makes wonders in explaining the brain, e.g. in
reference to the concept of working out genius and creativity.
Brooks spoke about the value of such a metaphor for building
artificially
intelligent systems, not for explaining the brain to non-technical
folks
Great breakthroughs are often based on simple associations
Question:
You got your facts wrong by writing
"it
was not hard for Woz to envisage a simple computer: the keyboard would
work like a typewriter. The messages would be displayed on a TV-like
monitor". What Woz did for video display was revolutionary!
Answer:
This paragraph should by no means diminish Woz'es
contribution. It is supposed to emphasize that geniuses can change the
world in their lifetime, yet individual breakthroughs that lead to
great theories and new inventions are all based on very simple
associations. One of those simple associations was to combine a
typewriter, TV and a processor. Woz has put a simple computer based on
these principles as
early as in 1970. Naturally, the whole string of minor-technical
improvements coming from a knowledgeable and prolific mind, ultimately
leads to multiple breakthroughs, new technologies, new trends, and
whole new industries. Individual steps can be as simple as
E=mc2, yet the speed and the variety of spluttering new creative associations makes genius minds change history
You should not lose sleep over unavoidable limitations
Question:
In
his longevity books, brain expert Dr Restak lists an important factor
of a healthy brain: accept unavoidable limitations. How does it square
with your formula for genius? What if my brain does not live up to my
dreams?
Dr. Restak's ten factors for healthy brain functioning are: 1) education, 2) curiosity, 3) energy, 4) keeping busy, 5) regular exercise, 6) acceptance of unavoidable limitations, 7) the need for diversity and novelty, 8) psychological continuity over the life span, 9) the maintenance of friends and social networks, and 10) the establishment and fostering of links with younger people
Answer:
In Negative
and positive emotions,
hints to optimism, patience and stoic philosophy encompass this
important philosophical approach: accepting unavoidable internal and
external limitations. This belongs to highly-effective techniques for
eliminating stress. Whatever you cannot
change should not leave any worrying mark on your mind. Unsolvable
problems should not take up
the processor time. All brains are inherently different in their
ability to develop genius, but the main thesis of the article is that
it does not affect the optimum strategy:
lifelong learning. Whatever your starting point, the strategy
is the same: go ahead. The only time mental limitations become
highly relevant is when we identify a problem and techniques that could
be used to address it. In other words, limitations become
very relevant once they can be circumvented
Individual genius is not the best predictor of success in collective leadership
Question:
Your
Bush Fallacy is erroneous. The
fact is that Bush is indeed not doing
well. He may have knowledge in other areas to compensate (e.g. social,
political, etc.), but if it is so, it is not showing up. Instead he is
making one diplomatic mistake after another. It seems to be the case of
"at first I did not like him, but it was only because of prejudice. Now, with much more knowledge about him, I still
do not like him...but for many other reasons!"
Answer:
The fallacy is not a pro-Bush argument in disguise. It is important to know that
in teamwork, some qualities that make for an individual genius may actually be a
hindrance.
The greatest geniuses in history often showed substantial difficulty
fitting into their surrounding and lacked teamwork skills. Tesla-Edison
comparison was to amplify this point. Chess champions are notoriously
erratic in social contacts (take Bobby Fischer as an excellent
example).
W. J. Sidis is probably
the most dramatic
case of all. The error many people make is to predict leadership
qualities on the grounds of
IQ or plain expertise. Bush's present and future record is irrelevant
for this fallacy to hold true. Similar predictions were made in
reference to
a B-movie actor Ronald Reagan when he beat brainy Carter.
Today, most Republicans would argue with satisfaction that predictions
entirely
missed the mark
Education as a formula for genius requires appropriate social and economical medium
Question:
Your statement that
"a majority of population can reach today's standards of genius"
is very encouraging for the opening. However, I feel that there is a
large number of our global community whom the odds against achieving
any standards is very slim under our present systems, policies and
attitudes towards education, social inclusion and fairness for all. For
example, in the most recent United Nations Human Development Report
published
recently, I found that of 17 Western countries surveyed, Ireland had
the second highest rate of
poverty (15.3%, or over half a million people). The only Western
country that is worse than Ireland is the U.S.
(16.5% living in poverty). Britain comes in 15th, the table is headed
by Sweden with a rating of 6.8%. One major contributor to poverty is
the high levels of functional illiteracy. Almost 23% of the Irish
population is illiterate while in Britain the figure is 20%. And this
is basic literacy tasks such as reading a bus time table. Another group
of people in the poverty trap are those with physical disabilities
unable to find employment due to discrimination by employers and
companies failing to provide adequate facilities. The figure for
unemployment among people with disabilities is 70% in Ireland. These
sample figures are shameful and surely unacceptable in the Information
Age. I suggest that creative imaginative thinking is required, starting
from the bottom up. Outdated antiquated thinking must be placed in the
annals of history and fresh all encompassing solutions be found. The
bigger dilemma is for the people of the third world who must endure
absolute poverty, children forced into slavery, armies, etc.
Answer:
You are absolutely right. This is exactly what worried
Boris Sidis a century ago. The formula for genius
via training naturally involves a number of preconditions that are difficult to meet for most of the population
(peace, employment, access to education, access to health care, housing, access to the Internet,
etc). For reasons of this site's focus, the article
focuses on
internal (or mental) barriers towards high intellectual achievement.
There is no doubt that external barriers are by far more formidable.
Superficially, we could conclude that nothing's changed since Boris
Sidis's time. However, several powerful forces
have come to play only recently that bode well for an acceleration of
positive change. This century was a century of democracy with only six
nations in the club
in 1900. With the amazing liberation of Africa in the 1960s and Eastern
Europe in the 1990s,
self-determination and, in part, democracy have taken irreversible
root. The other factor is the Internet. It will sprawl along the
continents and contribute to educating the Israelis about the
Palestinians and vice versa.
In summer 2000, the first Internet cafe opened in Baghdad. China's
Internet use is exploding. Forces of history take decades to mold the
planet, but we live in times when it no longer takes a lifetime to see
tangible progress. We are bombarded daily with signs of change which is
overwhelmingly positive. The
Long Boom article from
Wired is a recommended reading in this context
IQ of 120 is enough for a Nobel Prize
Question:
I have an IQ of 120. That is not bad but ... do you really
believe I can go on to genius achievement?
Answer:
Why not? Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman's IQ was 122. Yet he is considered one of the greatest physicists in
the US history
Chess grandmasters use different areas of their brain to plan chess moves
Question:
Except for theorizing, introspection and anecdote, is there really a scientific
evidence that great chess players "memorize" chess positions instead
of just using their best intuition to make good guesses?
Answer:
Yes. Grandmasters do use heuristics ("intuition") to pick the best
rules to apply to the current configuration of pieces. However, brain imaging
shows that they use their frontal and parietal cortex more extensively than
amateur players who rather use medial temporal cortex involved with new
associations and working memory. In other words, brain scans indeed show that
grandmasters' planning is more of a retrieval process than it is the case with
amateurs who sweat through working analysis of possible move combinations
Can people be intelligent and not creative?
Question:
According to your definitions, can people be intelligent and not creative?
Answer:
Intelligence
equated with
the problem solving capacity (i.e. not plain IQ) will require a high
degree of creative power. In other words, ability to quickly produce
rich abstract associations is part of
the problem solving power. The less creative you are, the less your
intelligence. However, creativity is not the only component in problem
solving. If you want to efficiently multiply multiple-digit numbers in
your memory, there is no branching in the mental derivation.
Consequently, ordinary IQ tests will be a poor measure of creativity.
Here an attention-deficit personality will be less efficient in
reaching the goal. In short, creativity is a vital but not the only
component of intelligence
What makes a genius?
Question:
I want to know where the genius begins from person to person, inside the womb, genes involved, blood types, etc.
Answer:
Genius
is too complex to list all contributing factors. Some of these are
genetic, some are related to the personality,
some are unknown yet, and some come from the environment and training.
Naturally we have little impact on the genetic component. It is also
very difficult to shape the personality. However, a conducive
environment and years training can lift a seemingly average person to
amazing levels of skill or expertise. See: Genius Checklist:
to see some factors that can be influenced to enhance genius
Knowledge of idioms is not a reliable predictor of a potential for
intellectual growth
(Victor, Sunday, August 21, 2005 6:55 AM)
Question:
Should
a 15-year-old 10th grade student be expected to, using his intuitive
and analytical faculties, understand and interpret idiomatic
expressions such as
"every cloud has a silver lining" and "put a spoke in the wheel", without having ever heard them before, and without hearing them in a proper context?
I only ask because, when I was 15 years old (I am now 23 y/o), my school had sent me to a youth counselor (for disciplinary reasons), and the counselor had asked me to interpret a list of idiomatic expressions, a few of which I had never heard before and had trouble understanding (I understand them all now, and, in retrospect, it seems a bit funny to me that I actually had difficulty understanding them at all). But I guess what I'm asking is, did my failure to understand them reflect a larger learning disability? Should I have known them? Is it normal that I had some difficulty with them? Were my answers to such questions supposed to predict or determine my future intellectual ability? Does this actually even fall under "logical/analytical" thinking? Is understanding such expressions a matter of simply reading more--a matter of broader exposure--or is it innate? Does difficulty understanding them simply reflect lack of reading (which can easily be remedied by more reading), or does it reflect inherent ability? Can one really understand "an axe to grind" without hearing it in a context, or must one learn it as a whole unit of vocabulary, as one might look up a word?
Needless to say, I am very familiar with all of these idioms now--and I don't quite remember how and where I learned them.
Even though I suspect I know the answers to such questions, I think I still need some validation. In the eight years that have elapsed since my sessions with that counselor, I never once gave any thought to them until the other night, when, out of the blue, they just popped into my head while I was reading. I am now in college, and this recalled memory has been mentally and intellectually paralyzing. It has caused me to ponder many unsettling questions. Even though I do great in school, I've never been one to place much stock in grades--I somehow always fear that my professors made a mistake. And no matter what I get on an exam or term paper, I always question my ability, and I am never satisfied. I am an enthusiastic math major, and now I find myself wondering if my efforts are all for naught all because of a few questions. It is these questions that have plunged me into a crisis of confidence as I begin to question everything about myself, and my mind tends to latch onto the more negative thoughts. Am I making too big a deal out of nothing?
Answer:
Understanding idiomatic expression is a reflection of the
amount of past contact with a quality language (esp. quality reading). To a
retentive mind, less reading will be needed to capture the meaning of idioms,
but reading, listening, conversation, etc. are always the primary sources of
such knowledge. In other words, if a 15-year-old does not know these
expressions, it speaks of the volume of previous reading, yet predicates little
on the actual mental faculties or the potential for intellectual growth. After
all, most idioms cannot be in any way decoded and understood without prior explanation or
without context.
To sum it up: yes, you do make too big a deal of it. If your mathematical skills have been noticed, you should not be inhibited in pursuing a career in the field. You have already, or you will polish your knowledge of idioms. Moreover, there are many science geniuses who continually neglect their prose reading. Most likely, some Nobel prize winners do not know some basic idioms either. Belief in your mental powers and your growth potential are essential for your further progress. Lack of it is a powerful inhibitor. For that reason, the faster you stop pondering over the issue, the better.
Incidentally, every could has a silver lining is far more popular than put a spoke in the wheel (e.g. 100 times higher Google count). In other words, they should be applied to quite different levels of linguistic proficiency. Both seem quite hard to test on a 15-year-old. Knowledge of these expressions might be an optimistic indicator for a youngster. However, lack of this idiomatic insight says very little of the individual at this age.
Does 1969 matter?
(Chris K., Monday, October 23, 2000 11:24 PM)
Question:
You
seem to value efficiency. That's the whole point of SuperMemo. That's
the selling point of SuperMemo. I don't see how learning trivia
presented in your articles contribute to efficiency. What's the
importance of memorizing the fact that the Internet started in 1969?
Answer:
Using
the same reasoning you might insist that memorizing 7x7=49 is equally
trivial. Yet the multiplication table makes it easier to go through
algebra. And other branches of mathematics. And engineering. And
ultimately, 7x7 helps you in your rocket science pursuits.
1969 is just a hook-point in the history of technology. If similar
reference
points were to be considered unimportant, you would have to give up the
entire technology timeline. This way you would lose the ability to
project the technological development into the future. You would weaken
your predictive power. Consequently, you will not be able to see the
directions and trends with prophetic clarity. In the new economy, your
position would be severely weakened, esp. if you plan to stay on the
cutting edge. It is no coincidence that all technological visionaries
frequently quote cases from the history of technology. They use it as
the groundwork for building their own visions.
Why do kids learn history? If dates were trivia, they might put Homo erectus after the pyramids, or Newton ahead of Copernicus. That would make it harder to discount Atlantis or understand relativity.
Kids learn history so as not to repeat it. They learn it to build a better
future
Chess grandmasters use different areas of their brain to plan chess moves
Question:
Except
for theorizing, introspection and anecdote, is there really a
scientific evidence that great chess players "memorize" chess positions
instead of just using their best intuition to make good guesses?
Answer:
Yes.
Grandmasters do use heuristics ("intuition") to pick the best rules to
apply to the current configuration of pieces. However, brain imaging
shows that they use their frontal and parietal cortex more extensively
than amateur players who rather use medial temporal cortex involved
with new associations and working memory. In other words, brain scans
indeed show that grandmasters' planning is more of a retrieval process
than it is the case with amateurs who sweat through working analysis of
possible move combinations
SuperMemo can be used for generating and organizing new ideas (#17778)
(Mark Zebitz , Denmark, Saturday, June 21, 2003 9:43 AM)
Question:
Is it possible to use SuperMemo as an Idea-generator?
Answer:
Yes. A little known and a scantly publicized value of
incremental reading is its power to combine
unrelated pieces of information in the learn&review process. As the
creative process is strongly rooted in remote associations, incremental
reading can make a powerful contribution to forming new ideas.
This will work less effectively if you try to come up with a new
advertising slogan. This may not work at all if you are a composer.
However, incremental reading may be an excellent tool in building
scientific models. On one hand it will help you build upon your own
ideas, on the other, it can be used to resolve contradictions in large
bodies of data.
To use SuperMemo as an idea generator use the following steps:
Classical brainstorming scoring techniques can be replaced with the use of A-Factors that determine the priority of individual pieces of information in incremental reading. You can also use the forgetting index to prioritize generated cloze deletions.
Remember to capitalize on your own physiology. You need to understand the mental states favoring the creative process. You may get excellent results after your morning coffee. The exactly same procedure applied when you are drowsy may produce nothing. See: Genius and Creativity. Sadly, a creative personality and excellent command of incremental reading are two important sine qua nons of success that may make this advice hard to follow
You can learn mathematics and problem solving with SuperMemo (#27294)
(SRD, WedAug11,2004 10:32 pm)
Question:
Mathematics is a field where the methods optimal for learning are
well-known, and provide a basis for generalizing to other fields. You say
that mathematics is an exception because of its deductive character. To
learn mathematics, repetitive practice is essential. But the practice is in
solving problems, not reciting answers.
Answer:
MATHEMATICS IS NOT AN EXCEPTION:
Amongst areas of application for SuperMemo, mathematics is not exactly an
exception. It is rather used as an example of a domain where inferential
knowledge dominates over factual knowledge. In the continuous spectrum of
applicability that runs from (1) fields that leave less room for SuperMemo
(non-neural learning, procedural learning, etc.) to (2) fields where
SuperMemo shines (learning languages, medical sciences, etc.), mathematics
lies somewhere in the middle. SuperMemo will be helpful for a mathematician,
but it will not be as mission-critical as it is for a medical student. What
makes mathematics special is its power of abstraction. We can use it to
model reasoning, problem solving, creativity, etc. We can also model the
learning process that leads to developing a mind armed with powerful problem
solving capability.
MODELING A MATHEMATICIAN: We can use a simplified model of a "mathematician" that shows where
SuperMemo is not applicable. Imagine an individual whose sole job in life is
solving instances of Towers of Hanoi fed to his room along some helping of
food. His job is entirely algorithmic. He will use 3 algorithmic rules to
solve instances of the problem. He will not need SuperMemo to keep the rules
in memory because he will apply them hundreds of times per day. All facts
that he needs to keep in his memory are instantaneous descriptions of the
problem currently being solved. Working memory is all he needs to keep
facts. Our mathematician does not need SuperMemo for neither facts nor
rules. However, once the job of the mathematician becomes more complex, once
he needs more rules, once there are rules classified as
"you-never-know-might-be-needed", once the number of recognition patterns
increases, once the derivation trees need to be stored long-term in memory
for backtracking (be it brain or paper), the room for spaced repetition
increases.
Last but not least, mathematicians do not solely live by problem solving.
They need to remember faces and names. Then need to understand basic rules
for staying fit and healthy. They need to understand the politics of the
department, which in turn will demand some psychology, sociology, or
economics. They will often seek inspiration in fact-rich history of
mathematics. They will want to understand their place and context in the
community, nation, planet and the universe. Even if their field is purely
inferential and they reuse a simple set of rules on a daily basis, there is
still a world of things they would like to understand and remember.
LEARNING BY DOING IS COSTLY:
Everyone knows that solving instances of problems is a very powerful way of
learning to use the rules in practise. Nothing ensures correct rule pattern
matching better than detecting the pattern in a set of camouflaged
conditions where the rule is applicable. That comes from the definition of
neural networks. However, pattern instantiation and problem solving are
costly in terms of time. You will definitely want to test and apply most
critical rules that determine your success in the field. However, retaining
a formula in SuperMemo may cost you as little as 1 minute per lifetime.
Using the same formula in a practical application may take far more.
Deriving the formula on your own may take a day or a week or a year. It is
not practical to test, let alone derive, all rules you consider valuable.
This is the matter of benefit-to-cost ratio. At times, you will take the
risk of failing to match the pattern, for the simple sake of saving time.
You will counterbalance the risk of failing a match on one rule, by arming
your mind with more rules applicable to the same situation, or applicable in
an entirely different field. Example: Few people actually use quadratic equations in practise. Yet few
would forgo this primary school knowledge if all it took to retain it was
1-3 minutes of their lives. Few will find it necessary to practise solving
quadratic equations to ensure the applicability of the formulas. Yet fewer
would be able to afford time for practicing. The net result: most people
would simply memorize the formulas and proceed to more applicable areas of
knowledge.
Learning by doing is powerful. Yet it is expensive. If you divide your day
into portions devoted to learning and portions devoted to doing (i.e.
production or creativity), you may in time discover that SuperMemo provides
a very good return on investment in your learning slot, while "learning by
doing" should best be reserved for your "production" slot, i.e. where you
apply the power of knowledge in practise for generating value.
REASON IT OUT: It is true that memorizing answers to problems is rarely sensible. Primarily, we would like to remember the rules (e.g. mathematical formulas). It is the rules that underlie the inferential power of the mind. However, there are many ways in which you can boost your mathematical powers through memorization. You may want to learn facts, rules, derivations and in rare instances, also literal solutions. Here is the list with short examples:
There are neural networks you cannot easily reach, there are memory states that are not easy to evoke, there is pattern matching that requires instantiation (learning by example), there are expert behaviors that are difficult to formalize; however, SuperMemo, introspection and learning by trial-and-error should be your powerful allies in understanding the basis of mental processes underlying problem solving and creativity
The stress of self-discipline can be overcome.
(Darien Chen, Thursday, November 17, 2011 18:24 PM)
Question:
It is rather unambiguous that self discipline
is necessary for maximal utility and contribution of value from
learning. However, another advice you give is to minimize stress.
Is
self discipline inherently stressful? Delaying gratification,
productivity, efficiency, and whatnot: aren't these taxing on the body?
What is your advice on surmounting this? This has been bothering me
Answer:
Self-discipline
can be stressful. One of the tricks you can employ is to gradually
impose harder and harder conditions on your performance. It is always
better to start slow and easy. Millions of people fail their New Year
resolutions because they aim too high and start too hard. They opt for
a difference between Dec 31 and Jan 1 that is simply just too large to
bear in the long run. If you decide today that you will learn Spanish
10 min. per day and every day, you are more likely to succeed for a
while. If you survive a week, you could make it 12 min and be boosted
by the results of the first week and your success in persisting in your
own resolutions. After 2-3 weeks, you will be tempted to add another
resolution, e.g. 10 min. of evening exercise, or a morning jogging
around the block, etc. You can keep expanding the list each time
you know all your weaknesses and strenghts in executing the previous
list of resolutions. If you fail, you will know you asked for too much.
You can start again with more modest goals. Your biology and psychology
cannot be ignored. You cannot jump over certain biological obstacles.
It may take years to reach your maximum potential. You will need to
figure out many things about your health, your sleep, your psychology,
your rhythms, your ability to combat disruptions, your ability to take
it on the chin, etc. With knowledge and experience, the stress factor
will be replaced with the happy sense of producitivity. The key is to
progress gradually and never stop learning (incl. learning about
yourself)
SuperMemo seems to neglect most of the purported 7-9 intelligencies
(anonymous, Oct 15, 2015, Thu, 02:13)
Question:
SuperMemo seems to neglect most of the purported 7-9
intelligences :)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
Answer:
The "intelligences" are vaguely defined subsets of human ability to perform well in brain-based tasks. As such they reach far beyond the domain of SuperMemo. Individual subset may rely on different sets of brain circuits whose performance may be partly inborn and partly trainable. The trainable component may be procedural or declarative. SuperMemo focuses on declarative memories. In other words, it is a great tool for a student of medicine, while it won't make much difference for an accomplished violinist. The intelligence subset
labeled "musical-rhythmic and harmonic" intelligence will determine the difference between a musician and a virtuoso. The latter will still need thousands of hours of training. Not only is such training largely procedural, it is best done with a
violin in hand, not with SuperMemo.
Incremental learning is quite suitable
for managing the process of acquiring a portion of processing skills accomplished with listening to selected pieces of music, but this again won't decide the ultimate outcome in the learning process.
To joking paraphrase the original suggestion, we might complain that students of medical sciences are also subject to grueling training that neglects most of their intelligences.