https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/31/book-review-raise-a-ge... is about essentially a very similar style of intensive individualized tutoring. (This SSC review links to a new English translation iof this work.) I'm not sure that intensive tutoring ever "went out of style" though, so much as gradually becoming infeasible because of (1) the amount of high-skill effort involved, which became more and more costly due to…
Is there proof that tiger parents are not effective? Many high achievers I have met have had parents that pushed them from early on. Casually dismissing this effect without any metrics seems an error.
Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
181–190 of 505 posts
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#182The problem is not just the availability of information. The problem is the time that capitalism requires just to survive leaving very little extra time to do stuff even for a genius. It takes not just genius to do great things but a mountain of free time and resources, which the aristocrats had in spades back in the day. Elon Musk is one of the few people with the confluence of all of these factors and is doing grea…
Capitalist tech investor with piles of cash and political influence, yes. But is Musk a genius? That case really hasn't been made yet.
He has to understand Rocket Science and Astrophysics to enough of a degree to communicate and make decisions with other Astrophysicists and Engineers at his space company.
He has to understand chemistry and mechanical engineering to enough of a degree to communicate with the lead engineers and make decisions at his EV company.
Not to mention how he got his start with Pay Pal and understanding computer technology and encryption.
He may or may not be a 'genius genius'.
But there's zero doubt in my mind that he 'ain't no dummy'. :)
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't have Einsteins because the brightest people don't work on astrophysics because there's no money in it. Einstein worked in a patent office from 1902-1909. In 1905 he published four papers on the photoelectric effect (laying the way for quantum physics), Brownian motion (proving the existence of atoms), special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy (leading to atomic energy). From the beginning…
Einstein applied to higher institutions where he wanted to work, but he was not admitted. The patent office was the available job, so he took it.
Maybe the answer is that we have become more effective at detecting and monetizing genius; Einstein might have languished for the rest of his life if he were less driven. Or maybe it's the opposite; we don't give smart people enough time or money without draining them of the time to work on novel discovery. Or both at once.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#184This is ridiculous. We’re seeing innovation EVERYWHERE, and looking back, this will be a golden age for progress (if the species makes it far enough to look back, that is). Think of it like this: we invented personal computers. At the time, only nerds had access to computation. These days, all kinds of scientists just script up things in python. We have how many million people who are able to code? I don’t even care…
> that I’m typing while my girlfriend lies in my arm in our bed, should be mind blowing
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is more of a version of the "why have we stopped making good music/movies, almost everything today is garbage?" issue. Tangentially, though, I think there's something to the complaints about music. Why does pop music have any noticeably autotuned singers at all, when anyone who regularly goes to karaoke bars knows that there are lots of good singers everywhere? In other words, why is being a good enoug…
Autotune is a tool like any other. Generally those who consumed media before that tool was invented will be skeptical of it because “things I like didn’t need it.” Those who begin consuming media after the tool was invented don’t have the same biases. A 50-years ago version of that would be microphones on broadway. It used to be a point of pride to fill a theater without amplification. Now we don’t really care.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#186The fact is it is a golden age in the way she wishes; it's just that the benefit is spread more widely around, like peanut butter. The ability to do work built upon the work of others has massively sped up -- as a startup in, for example, pharma we were able to rapidly search the literature, download relevant papers, and pass them around 15 years ago in a way that was unthinkable 15 years before that. The amount of information sharing (including, in Silicon Valley but much less so elsewhere, confidential info shared with winking approval of management) has spread technological and non-technological development massively.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a well studied phenomenon in literature. Some books we regard as classics today sold relatively little upon release, while authors in the past were incredibly popular then, upon the author's death usually, the name was utterly forgotten from aesthetic appraisals. Ideas of a "canon" are much less stable than people think.
Even when it comes to philosophy I think it holds true. Up into the 1930s Bergson was regarded as one of the most important philosophers in Europe while Wittgenstein was barely mentioned outside a few, select circles, even he had already published his Tractatus . Nowadays Bergson returns blank stares when you mention his name to an Anglo audience while Wittgenstein is seen as one of the most important philosophers of…
He is fashionable nonsense.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#188We don't have Einsteins because the brightest people don't work on astrophysics because there's no money in it. Instead, they're figuring out how to use AI to sell more dick pills and artfully distressed furniture to people devoid of erections and taste on the goddamn Internet, for more money in a year than Einstein saw in a decade.
While I feel the same sentiment about the brightest working on those or similar problems, is it that in the past there was not a similar proportion of the brightest working on similarly pointless and wasteful problems and that now they are all forgotten while Einstein is not? I feel like a large portion of the brightest may have always sold out, maybe Einstein was just obsessed with a particular problem enough to cha…
It is that in the past a large portion of the world's brightest were working in the fields or fishing or mining or making bowls or adding up numbers as a clerk.
Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored
#189When you read the works of geniuses, it becomes clear that they haven't climbed an intellectual hill so much as related to the world in a particular way that allowed them to surmount them. To explore at all, you need confidence, which comes from exercising skills and ideas, making mistakes, and handling them with the aplomb of someone whose basic relationship to the world is that where it is there to be discovered, and there is a some force that wishes for you to thrive. Everything I have read on excecptional people involved this drawing out of brilliance and the liberating of a mind to explore. This is the opposite of the industrial cog education we have now.
The aphorism that all things are shaped by the forces they oppose is a useful metaphor, where to develop fully, you can't be kept in a small intellectual tank, like a fish that only grows to the size of its bowl. This freedom from constraints is the necessary condition to grow brilliance, and coincidentally, that freedom happens to come with nobility and aristocratic ideals. Another simile I use is from working with animals, where without free committed forward motion, instructing or guiding them is meaningless and even harmful, because you aren't teaching them anything unless they are already committed to a direction that you augment. The way we educate kids today is like cornering an animal and then rewarding it only as it submits and compromises itself to avoid punishment, and then recognizing it as educated when it is finally so spiritually broken it no longer tries to escape.
Without a kind of liberty, a mind will only be shaped by its constraints. Nobility and elevation in this sense can absolutely be acquired, but it has to originate from within, and it is not symbolic, it's the effect of techne and the exercise of freedom and competence, and not an artifact of the reflected approval of mediocre others. There is even a spiritual element to it, where belief in a divine intent provides that foundation for relating to your environment and the world with principle, and which deflects the constraints that would limit and mis-shape your development. This is why religious education is still considered valuable even by atheists, as it provides this foundation.
Adapting these ideas to life in a modern city, which is essentially a closed tank of mental constraints that emphasizes navigating relationships with people without any sense of exploring something greater - would be a really interesting question. How do you liberate the mind of a kid who lives in a box, whose existence is moving from box to box, watching glowing boxes, with the only differences being symbolic in the context of relationships with other box people, and which is not rooted to any physical principle or objective notion of good or hope? It makes genius almost impossible.
Thank you to the author for such an important essay. I hope it gets more traction.