Genius, Genii, and the History of How the West was Thought Up
Today, in between marking and picking away at missing scenes, I have been reading journal articles on genius. The topic turns out to be a much more fascinating -- and even more fraught -- than I had realised
( Read more... )
There are different types of genius, I suppose. But I know that even arithmetic baffled me when I was a kid (comparatively - I did "okay" in grade school - but I was well above-average in reading at the same time). Later, I was stymied to the point of near-failure in classes in trigonometry, calculus and physics; also, statistics. (Oddly, geometry and chemistry weren't so much a closed book to me as math and physics....)
What that all means in truth, I don't know. What it meant to *me* was that I couldn't continue on in certain fields of study: my "type of genius" forced me into the humanities - in my case, literature, because I loved it. Math and physics were closed to me. No matter how interesting they seemed (and they did seem interesting, I simply couldn't grasp the material). They were simply... out.
Of course I put all that behind me. I'm old now, and your post just reminded me of these things. Nevertheless, it makes me sad that I couldn't even write a story about Rodney with sufficient tech to pass for "real" because there's really no writing Rodney without "tech," not if you want to capture anything more than enough for a fluff-piece.
Anyway, I love your post because it made me think and made other people think in their comments! You done good, my dear!
Love, max
Reply
The reason I made that offhand comment of "10 years" of study is because that's how long it's taken me to really master my craft. It also seems to be supported by this interesting talk on genius versus expertise (which the lovely anatsuno linked me to above. So while I'm ready to believe that you would not gain much benefit from ten years spent in pursuit of physics and maths, I think my contention holds to some degree. If, for instance, I spent ten years that way, I think I'd come out the other end competent (but no genius) in them, given that my natural talent doesn't lie that way, but I'm not actually intrinsically bad at them.
That was my point really -- that I think it can be easy for clever people to think they are bad at something, when they are actually just "ordinary"; when talent makes something easy to master, having to slog slog slog can make it seem we are bad at something. Of course, it is also possible for a genius to be bad at some things, no matter how bright they are at something else. And the opposite is true too; as bizarrehands points out below, some people are geniuses at using their hands, or understanding mechanics at an instinctive level, and yet may not be "clever" by any of the standard measures of our culture.
None of which is my trying to argue with you; rather, I think this is another example of how individual experience can be so varied. My experience has been opposite to yours in this regard. I've found that if I work hard enough, I can master pretty much anything, even if I'm not so great at it. One excruciating semester I forced myself to learn algebra by working through an entire book of problems, until I could solve equations correctly every time. It was horrid, but yes, after enough effort, I could do it. I've never found anything I couldn't learn if I was stubborn enough and interested enough. However, I have enough first hand experience as a teacher to know this makes me unusual.
That's probably why I find interesting this idea that 10,000 hours or ten years is about the time it takes to develop expertise. It's something I plan to look into further, because I think there's a lot in it; but obviously talent is a crucial tipping point in this equation. I'd be interested in knowing which tends to have more impact, talent or training. I'm sure someone will have researched it; it's just a matter of finding it!
Thanks again for your thoughts -- your disagreement has been very helpful in terms of helping me hone my ideas.
Reply
Perhaps you're right: I certainly wasn't "below average" in arithmetic in grade school; I was simply "average" (what you call "ordinary"). And the slogging part - well, I wasn't accustomed to that, for sure! Grins!
You know, thinking about it, you may very well be correct, that if I'd tried a little harder - been motivated or encouraged by somebody to try - in the maths/physics etc., I might have understood. The fact that any tutoring I had (in algebra, actually) was so fraught with terror of failure, rather than attacked in a serious but not time-fear manner, probably contributed greatly to my failure to grasp things. I might have understood the math if I'd been in a situation to pursue comprehension at my own pace....
A couple years back (a year or so before I retired) I decided to read Proust's "In Search of Lost Time," which is a multi-volume story, pretty difficult to read, even for very capable people. I managed (with the help of an on-line discussion group for the fun of it) to get through several of the volumes before my interest flagged and I stopped reading. Now, in college I didn't take a course where Proust was studied but I did try to read this on my own, without success. Couldn't "slog" past a few chapters of the first volume.... But with sufficient motivation (I really wanted to do it! smile), even though I was far from my schooldays, and had nobody in my acquaintance to talk about the books with, I found a way, and did pretty well, I believe!
So, maybe I should try the algebra again! Only kidding! I doubt I could do anything with even an Algebra 101 textbook - not without a really good tutor!
Thanks so much for your post and comments. You've made me ponder lots of things, which I love to do. I appreciate it.
Love, max
Reply
Leave a comment