Slashdot Mirror
How Do You Spot a Genius?
Hugh Pickens writes "Ingrid Wickelgren reports in Scientific American that people have long-equated genius with intelligence, but it is more aptly characterized by creative productivity which depends on a combination of genetics, opportunity and effort. 'Nobody can be called out for outstanding contributions to a field without a lot of hard work, but progress is faster if you are born with the right skills. Personality also plays a role. If you are very open to new experiences and if you have psychopathic traits (yes, as in those shared by serial killers) such as being aggressive and emotionally tough, you are more likely to be considered a genius.' True creativity and genius depends on an unfiltered view of the world, one that is unconstrained by preconceptions and more open to novelty, writes Wickelgren. 'In particular, a less conceptual and more literal way of thinking, one more typical of people with autism, can open the mind up to seeing details that most people miss.' Our schools devote few resources on nurturing nascent genius, concludes Wickelgren, because they are focused on helping those students most likely to be left behind. 'We need to train teachers to spot giftedness, which may take a variety of forms and often needs to be accompanied by creativity, drive and passion. Offering a greater variety of enrichment activities to children will cause many more hidden talents to surface. And accelerated classes and psychological coaching are essential for nurturing talent as early and vigorously as possible.'"
I look in the mirror.
The problem with these articles is that they suggest that in order to be a brilliant savant (ie: can do difficult arithmetic mentally without a calculator, or can play chess at an expert level with minimal tutoring), one must be autistic. This is not the case. One may be autistic, and not brilliant, just as well someone could be a brilliant savant, but not be on the autism spectrum. The two cases are effectively statistically independent of each other.
Another issue is that autistic savants often get much more attention than their typical (ie: non-autistic) counterparts due to being able to carry out an apparently amazing mental feat despite suffering from a crippling set of mental limitations and/or deficiencies. Someone not suffering from such a condition is just generally thought of as very smart, and being an educated savant is not such a crowd pleaser, especially in an age where anti-intellectualism is on the rise. Everybody likes a hero story, but few people are comfortable accepting the notion that there are much smarter people out in the world.
If parents are lucky enough to have the funding to send their kids to private schools with a Behavioral Interventionist (BI), then the strengths of the child are usually discovered early on, and it can make the kid's life a lot easier. If the parents don't have the cash though, the kid likely won't enjoy that benefit.
On a side note, one should consider noticing talent amongst the non-autistic population in a school. How does one filter on this criteria when kids are not challenged? I turned out to be a math whiz in school, and was doing calculus by the time I was entering high school. If it weren't for my parents, I would've had to endure 5 years of boredom in high school math, as most of the teachers just came with a hangover, passed the daily readings out, and sat at their desks playing minesweeper. Thanks to my parents, I was allowed to fly ahead in math, and use my spare time for more shop and science courses. If the teachers don't care in the first place, the odds of them helping out their brightest students is minimal.
Background: Been debating this topic with a colleague who has 10 years experience in this field for years over lunch.
'If you are very open to new experiences and if you have psychopathic traits (yes, as in those shared by serial killers) such as being aggressive and emotionally tough, you are more likely to be considered a genius.' ... 'Offering a greater variety of enrichment activities to children will cause many more hidden talents to surface. And accelerated classes and psychological coaching are essential for nurturing talent as early and vigorously as possible.'
We should also have people they trust randomly hit them with no explanation, to nurture that desirable sociopathic trait.
Now, wait... That doesn't sound right. In fact, it sounds so wrong that there must be some other explanation. How about this:
Perhaps the answer is not to hold sociopaths up as geniuses just because they succeed in an economic system that can be exploited by sociopaths. Perhaps when Scientific American discusses genius, it should not accept the average idiot's perception but should delve a bit deeper and even explain why sociopathic business success is not a good measure of genius. Perhaps Scientific American should focus on actual geniuses rather than merely people in the top 1% in intelligence, who are also willing to harm society to win.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Scientific American's role is to reflect the average man's perception of genius. Perhaps Scientific American should report on the coach of the next Superbowl winning team, since that is what all the beer-soaked fat-part-of-the-curve folks at the pub seem to shout after the game, "That coach is a genuis!"
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
...were treated as a disease to be cured, by any means necessary, by the time I got to 7th grade.
I could read at 4, and was encouraged well by my parents, who spent a great deal of time defending me to Administrative staff.
My HS Principal taught me Karate for several years prior; he knew I wasn't a problem, no matter how bad the asshole teachers hated me. :)
I survived, and managed to do well while my detractors have mostly died off thru poor genes and stupidity.
Odds are, I designed something, somewhere, in a machine that almost everyone here or their relatives have been in.
Sorting out the geeks early is a Great Idea, as long as we can keep the other idiots from either exterminating us, or keeping us in concentration camps. (yes, the TSA isn't the Gestapo, but it's a 'like organization'...)
What times we live in... :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
"People attach the label Ãoegeniusà to such diverse characters as Leonardo DaVinci, Bobby Fischer and Toni Morrison. The varied achievements of such individuals beg the question: what defines a genius?
False. It raises the question. We've been over this.
Blithely assuming that Toni Morrison is generally considered a genius is begging the question.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Gifted programmes as they have been developed over the last 30 years are in fact probably the worst thing for someone with exceptional ability.
Too often gifted education:
- stigmatizes children in a way that causes a wide disconnect between their self-esteem and self-confidence.
- encourages kids for being "smart" or "intelligent" which rewards them for something they cannot control, and causes weird neuroses.
- isolates kids from their peer group based on criteria they don't understand, and prevents them from forming natural relationships with their classmates.
- presumes that these "gifted" kids can be engineered somehow into whatever the popular ideal of citizenship is. For example, gifted kids are not encouraged to do sports are a part of their enriched education, primarily because of middle-class ideas of "intellectuals."
- discourages solving problems with discipline and work, which is why you see so many "gifted" drop outs and burnouts.
- shields "normal" kids from the disruptive exposure to intelligence that they too should understand and adapt to.
I spent much of my education in these programmes and they are misguided, idealistic, and reinforce the astonishingly stupid idea that intelligence is a kind of secular holiness.
Should we have streamed classes? Absolutely, but enrichment should be available as an option for kids who are up to it, perhaps with qualified interest, but not the fatuous anointment it has become.
If you ever resented not being in the gifted class, I can assure you that you dodged a bullet.
In a 2010 article, Svetlana Holt & Joan Marques wrote the following:
"Supporting Brown ... assertions about the transition of narcissistic tendencies from business schools to business
organizations, Pepper (2005) reveals a concerning fact about narcissism in business leaders. While this quality is
often sought in corporate leaders, because the right dosage of narcissism can lead to optimal innovation, there is often
only a thin line that distinguishes brilliant thinking narcissists, such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey and
Jack Welch, who are also charismatic and visionary, from psychopaths such as Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Koslowski,
who use their skills in harmful ways that we have all come to witness in recent years. Andrews and Furniss (2009) take
it a step further and link excessive narcissism in business organizations to psychopathic behavior. They assert that,
perfectly matching to the description of a psychopath, these business executives are superficially charming, grandiose,
deceitful, remorseless, void of empathy, irresponsible, impulsive, lacking goals, poor in behavioral controls, and
antisocial."
(The doi in case anyone wants to see the whole article is http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0951-5 )
Bark less. Wag more.
In 6th grade I was tested for a number of things when I broke the standard tests. The best guess pegged my IQ at around 165-170. By that time I had mastered algebra, had a firm grasp on a couple dozen sciences, and created a number of interesting small inventions (I reinvented the DC motor and came up with a simple rotary engine.)
The next 3 years of my education inside the LA School District involved watching old movies, repeating the times tables, taking field trips (which in fact I found quite enjoyable) and creative writing. This was an attempt to keep me occupied while my peers caught up, which of course never happened... for obvious reasons it couldn't. However, they pissed away the most important educational period of my life. I could have accelerated and been done with my traditional education by the time I was 13 or 14, and moved on to college perhaps completing that by the time I was 18. Our schools are not designed to teach the bright, and in fact, are often punitive to intelligent and creative young people. In a time when we most need these traits fully empowered and present in our culture, such behavior from our leaders and institutions is criminal. However, it is consistent with the large scale conversion of the American mouth-breathing public into obedient, subservient consumption units in the vast corporate engine that is our culture.
Perhaps it time for a new revolution. One in what's possible for being human.
I'm an actual genius - 146 IQ. You have no idea what you're talking about.
If your child is so super intelligent that ordinary schoolwork bores them, they should be smart enough to breeze through the tests. They should just "play the game" while at school and do their own learning at home, or in additional enrichment programs (most are free for low income).
That works for about 3-4 years. At some point you just stop trying.
Here's a video on division. I know you already know how to divide... that's the point. I want you to watch it. It's about 10 minutes long.
Have you gotten through it yet? Yes? Great. Now go watch it 10 or 15 more times.
I'm serious. Because that is what it is like trying learn with normal people. I got it the first time it was explained... but the teacher wants to explain it over and over and over and over again so that everyone gets it.
In 2nd grade I was reading 8-9th grade science books. There were YEARS in elementary school when I did not learn a single thing.
It kills a persons soul to sit through lectures on things they already know for that long.
After fighting with teachers to get me into higher level courses, I was finally pulled from school, and was home schooled. I was in 6th grade, and studying junior-level college material.
Look for smart and motivated people who do brilliant and interesting stuff instead. You won't always know who those are at age 9, and who qualifies will change over time as some really bright kids decide to spend their time killing their brain cells while some not-quite-as-bright kids choose to hit the books.
Slapping the label "genius" on a kid doesn't help them, and arguably stunts their social development. Taking any kid that wants to do something awesome (and reasonably safe) and giving them the help they need to do it helps any kid whether they're a genius or not. If the kid wants to do some science, great! If the kid wants to compete in a chess tournament, great! If the kid wants to play the violin, great! Find a way to make that happen.
I am officially gone from
There was a set of circumstances that allowed Maria Montessori to express her genius. She was born smart and put in the effort == yes, she had those two components -- becoming the first female physician in Italy, and having majored in engineering prior to that.
But then something happened to propel her into the work for which we know her today.
She became pregnant -- recall this is circa 1900 Italy -- and the father of her child refused to marry her. So she secretly gave up the child to an orphanage and was heartbroken over missing the child as well as the father of the child, and actually more over the latter. It was at this point that she launched herself into the scientific study of children.
She loved the study of children and appears nurturing of them in photos, yet her writings speak of the children in a cold and scientific manner. Oh, there is a lot of purpose expressed in her writings, a lot of "this is the future of the world," and "this is how we will achieve world peace," but the day-to-day observations are eerily at arms-length. It is just so natural for the rest of us -- too natural -- to "think of the children" with emotion rather than intellectually and scientifically think of the children. My personal theory is that her mothering nurturing was prematurely ended when she gave her son up for adoption.
One of her biographers theorizes that the reason she restricted her study of children to those 3 years old and up -- until 50 years into her career when she was 80 years old and relented to creating a toddler program -- was because it would remind her of her son.
And no one since Maria Montessori seems to have been able to scientifically analyze children and create a resulting pedagogy. Tallying filled scantron bubbles is too narrow -- Maria Montessori was able to observe motion, behavior, and motivation. And other pedagogies are derived from preconceived notions, much as pre-Renaissance "physics" was.
Genius is an accident of birth, and true genius can be as crippling as any mental health disorder you can think of. It means flunking out of school easily or being tested for things like ADD only to discover that you were merely bored. It can make a job that isn't challenging a living hell as your mind simply can't cope with the monotony.
Genius level intelligence means a life of being shunned by school mates and later co-workers if you aren't careful to mask your intelligence. It creates a lot of social problems and can really hurt dating until you get really good at masking it. Genius is over-rated by those who lack it and rarely appreciated by those who have it. The most important skill a genius has to learn is how to mask their intelligence, so that those around them don't consider them to a 'genius'. Kind of sad when you think about it.
If you have a genius level child, the most important thing you can do for them is help them to develop their social skills, it will be their greatest challenge.
Young kids should copulate geniuses, then they'd all be smart.
You might have missed that particular class in sex-ed.
And criminal law.
And English.