Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

erikhoel.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 505 posts

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#491

Post by pharke »

acenes wrote: post #403

But the reason why so many historical figures were tutored or homeschooled is because there was no adequate public education system. This is confusing correlation for causation. Indeed, Bertrand Russell wrote: > The method of a hereditary leisure class without duties was, however, extraordinarily wasteful. None of the members of the class had been taught to be industrious, and the class as a whole was not exceptional…

Isn't the important thing whether or not tutoring produces a higher percentage of Darwins compared to our current model of schooling? If it does, then shouldn't we expend some effort on identifying students that are more likely to become a Darwin and then provide them with high quality, publicly funded tutoring? We all benefit from the discoveries of geniuses like Darwin so it is in our common interest to make sure that we produce figures of that stature as often as possible.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#492

Post by archibaldJ »

archibaldJ wrote: post #436
nwatson wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is useful, worthwhile knowledge in a "sparse" search space? If so it will take more and more effort to reach anything new, and we'll need generations-long moonshot efforts to force young kids to skip their childhoods to dedicate time to nothing more than making the next, say chemistry, discovery by the time they're 45. Many are accused of manufacturing B.S. search spaces to explore in English departments. If worthwhi…

100% agreed. To add my 2¥ I think this aligns with a generalised version of the main thesis of the essay too. It’s just that the modern variation of aristocratically tutored is along the lines of serendipity-induced tutored (meeting the right mentors/senseis at the right time in the sense that when you turned back and look at the past you can connect the dots nicely for your future endeavour. It is in this way that y…

and to optimize for serendipity: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1214274038933020672?s=21

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#493

Post by amon22 »

pharke wrote: post #491
acenes wrote: post #403

But the reason why so many historical figures were tutored or homeschooled is because there was no adequate public education system. This is confusing correlation for causation. Indeed, Bertrand Russell wrote: > The method of a hereditary leisure class without duties was, however, extraordinarily wasteful. None of the members of the class had been taught to be industrious, and the class as a whole was not exceptional…

Isn't the important thing whether or not tutoring produces a higher percentage of Darwins compared to our current model of schooling? If it does, then shouldn't we expend some effort on identifying students that are more likely to become a Darwin and then provide them with high quality, publicly funded tutoring? We all benefit from the discoveries of geniuses like Darwin so it is in our common interest to make sure t…

What are you talking about? There is no shortage of geniuses who advance sciences today. If anything, the scientist class is wider than ever. Also, you're proposing segregation based on vague attributes which would be horrible for children and harm society.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#494

Post by pharke »

betwixthewires wrote: post #408
datatrashfire wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that 1:1 instruction, or tutoring, is a superior way to acquire knowledge. Having lots of information available is great, but not a substitute.

The discussion here is about an argument that says basically without tutoring you can't create Einsteins. My only point is that we can now make them easier and cheaper than ever because they can make themselves. On this specific topic, I must admit I do believe 1:1 tutoring is overrated. I've taught myself most of what I know, and the rest I learned in a classroom. I have never had one on one tutoring. I may not be r…

Having a tutor is superior to simply having access to all of the information in the world. The tutor acts as a guide to that information, they structure the presentation of that information to you based on your individual needs which means you can quickly speed through parts that you pick up easily while spending enough time and having a ready source of answers and guidance on problems that you have difficulty with allowing you to master them faster. Sure, someone could reach the same level of understanding with nothing but the internet and motivation but they will arrive there much, much later than someone who is actively tutored from a young age. Think of it as like acceleration to some maximum speed, the one that reaches that speed earlier will be able to go much further during the time allotted. You could see that allotted time as the lifespan of the person but age also affects performance and could result in a drop off in ability over time.

An intelligent person who is privately tutored can be performing at a college level or above when they are in their early teens. They can be at a doctoral level when they hit their twenties and then spend the entirety of their most productive years making use of their education. Compare that to our current educational track which has most people achieving their doctorate in their 30s. Performance for the average autodidact would likely be much worse.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#495

Post by pharke »

iamsaitam wrote: post #452
karaterobot wrote: post #91

Most people here are interpreting "genius" as something like "really smart" or "able to make scientific progress". I don't believe that's the author's meaning: he's talking about individuals whose work single-handedly upends our understanding of the world and causes a revolutionary change in thinking. By that definition, making a faster CPU, or a very successful product is not sufficient. By that definition, who are…

In the arts there are plenty of "geniuses", Miles Davis is one.

The arts is also one area where one on one tutoring is still extremely common if not the defacto method of education. e.g. music lessons, "musical families", mentorship from fellow band members.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#496

Post by pharke »

amusedcyclist wrote: post #164
karaterobot wrote: post #91

Most people here are interpreting "genius" as something like "really smart" or "able to make scientific progress". I don't believe that's the author's meaning: he's talking about individuals whose work single-handedly upends our understanding of the world and causes a revolutionary change in thinking. By that definition, making a faster CPU, or a very successful product is not sufficient. By that definition, who are…

Our understanding of the world is so advanced that revolutionary changes are bound to be rarer and when they do happen they're understood by a tiny fraction of the population. In fact most people have absolutely no idea what Einstein did. He was indeed a great scientist, but to the average person Einstein is a just an idea of a genius, they were never touched by his work. I studied physics in undergrad and I barely u…

> Our understanding of the world is so advanced that revolutionary changes are bound to be rarer

Didn't physicists say exactly the same thing before Einstein?

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#497

Post by pharke »

carapace wrote: post #360
karaterobot wrote: post #91

Most people here are interpreting "genius" as something like "really smart" or "able to make scientific progress". I don't believe that's the author's meaning: he's talking about individuals whose work single-handedly upends our understanding of the world and causes a revolutionary change in thinking. By that definition, making a faster CPU, or a very successful product is not sufficient. By that definition, who are…

Norbert Wiener, famous child prodigy in his own time, founded Cybernetics among other things.

> Leo (Norbert's Father) had educated Norbert at home until 1903, employing teaching methods of his own invention, except for a brief interlude when Norbert was 7 years of age. Earning his living teaching German and Slavic languages, Leo read widely and accumulated a personal library from which the young Norbert benefited greatly. Leo also had ample ability in mathematics and tutored his son in the subject until he left home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener#Youth

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#498

Post by pharke »

tynpeddler wrote: post #473

One more possibility to consider. Modern genius is so industrialized and so common that we don't recognize it as genius anymore. Every year we see an incredible number of technical advances that are just taken for granted. There are so many movies, books, short stories and essays that it's almost impossible to really discover all the works of genius. I'm also not sure if any of the definitions used for genius, or as…

I take issue with this, I don't see any discontinuous advances happening every year. I see incremental advances or the results of miniaturization and mass production making things small or cheap enough to reach mass market. Those are examples of progress but not of genius. Where are the revolutions? Why does it seem like physics has stalled, stuck on the same questions we've had for over half a century? We are making slow progress against universal scourges like cancer and Alzheimer's but there are no major breakthroughs that shake the foundations of biology and medicine. Psychology is still groping in the dark, unable to do much for the suffering millions endure. Where are the architectural advances beyond steel and concrete? The best we can do is 3D print odd looking homes. Why did it take almost 50 years to get ambitious space programs re-started? Even on the artistic front we are awash in a sea of nostalgia. I don't think genius is common at all and I agree with the article that we probably now produce them at a much lower rate.

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#499

Post by burntoutfire »

pas wrote: post #490
fmvab wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re right in a way, but the problem is multifaceted. If true, the idea that 1-1 tutoring pushes an average student two standard deviations above the mean where nothing else does today is compelling evidence that this is an element missing from today’s apparent lack of genius. Imagine what pairing inherent talent with a talented tutor might do for results — it might be enough to produce the high-sigma resul…

I think people misunderstand the skills needed for progress nowadays (or maybe ever). We have clear avenues forward where we are basically just waiting for data to trickle in, then prune the falsified hypotheses, and repeat. It takes smart and dedicated individuals relatively a lot of funding and time (see mRNA vaccines or the blue LED story), but it's not exactly the same as coming up with Maxwell's equation out of…

> It takes smart and dedicated individuals relatively a lot of funding and time (see mRNA vaccines or the blue LED story), but it's not exactly the same as coming up with Maxwell's equation out of thin air.

Who says there are no more breakthrough to conjure out of the thin air?

Re: Geniuses of the past were aristocratically tutored

#500

Post by tynpeddler »

pharke wrote: post #498
tynpeddler wrote: post #473

One more possibility to consider. Modern genius is so industrialized and so common that we don't recognize it as genius anymore. Every year we see an incredible number of technical advances that are just taken for granted. There are so many movies, books, short stories and essays that it's almost impossible to really discover all the works of genius. I'm also not sure if any of the definitions used for genius, or as…

I take issue with this, I don't see any discontinuous advances happening every year. I see incremental advances or the results of miniaturization and mass production making things small or cheap enough to reach mass market. Those are examples of progress but not of genius. Where are the revolutions? Why does it seem like physics has stalled, stuck on the same questions we've had for over half a century? We are making…

First, Revolution is not the same thing as genius.

Second, even genius's don't bring frequent revolutions. Special and general relativity made very little impact on people's lives for decades. It took the Manhattan project, one of the largest industrial project of all times involving tens of thousands of people, to kickstart the nuclear age. And that involved a lot of things besides just relativity.

Third, we live in a world of revolutions that are so common people don't even grasp them. Ten years ago, Go was almost impossible for computers to play with any proficiency. Protein folding was still incredibly difficult and people were building dedicated super computers like Anton to try and make things faster. Now both of those effectively solved problems. Drone's have revolutionized battle fields in ways that are having very significant geopolitcal ramifications that effect hundreds of millions of lives. The raptor engines represent an incredible leap forward in the material sciences that will allow humanity to reach space more cheaply than ever before.

If there are no genius's today because cancer and Alzheimer's are still around, then Einstein wasn't a genius because he didn't solve those problems either.

Post reply on HN