Curse Of The Gifted (2000)

> Holmesian as it gets

Yeah, it wasn't a great example, just sprung to mind. But I think you got the basic gist of how it works. I think the difference is that Holmes deduces his conclusions by following clues, but Groundhog Day aggregates information to find patterns...which can then be used to make deductive guesses. I guess it's more of an inductive approach at the beginning.

> Do you find that this comes easily to you?

If I don't put effort into turning it off, which I do most of the time these days because I associate doing it with bad feelings, it's just part of the normal process my brain goes through when I'm getting to know somebody. So about as much effort as having a bunch of conversations and remembering a few things. I have a terrible memory so I have to spend some effort reinforcing a few key facts. But I can then usually derive the rest with reasonable accuracy without having to remember it all.

Why remember things when I can just figure them out each time?

It's actually part of the classic "gifted curse" I personally deal with. I never really bothered to learn good memorization techniques because I can usually figure things out from the few kernels I do remember. But when topics get too complex, or I'm just outright missing data, the jenga pile falls over and I'm rather lost.

I'm also slightly dyscalculic and dyslexic (took a few tests and everything for formal and second diagnoses), which provides their own sets of challenges -- this is surprisingly common among the very gifted, but we usually "solve" it ourselves internally and thus the research on it is pitifully poor. I didn't personally find out about it conclusively till I was well into my mid-twenties, though some early childhood tests raised the possibility.

Whoa, whoa whoa. I don't know about pilots but speaking as someone whose significant other is in medicine, those people are FIERCE. Yelling, crying, and having massive holier-than-thou outbursts is so common that I'm surprised anyone puts up with it.

1. The "I" ratio on your comment -- how much you're talking about yourself, your needs, your wants, your opinion, and your experience vs. looking at third-party needs, wants, opinions, experiences, and the general outward span of reality -- it's pretty high on the "I" side.

This might or might not be something worth intentionally looking to change. You've obviously got enough reflective ability and raw mental horsepower to self-modify on this characteristic if you want, and it will definitely be a different frame of reference and create a different subjective experience. It might be more enjoyable to you, might produce more happiness, and might lead to something meaningful -- depending on what you want out of life, and your definitions/sentiments around enjoyment, happiness, and meaning.

2. Play harder games.

The first part of this comment -- the "I ratio" -- that's an observation and something to think about, not a recommendation.

This one is.

I'm almost certain your life would be across the board more enjoyable to you and useful broadly if you play harder games. Boredom and acedia are almost universally agreed to be miserable things, and when you're bored/disillusioned and very smart, it's a torturously bad situation.

I was something like that when I was younger -- testing across the boards on tests, interested in things that few other people could talk to me about, etc.

I always wanted really deep and meaningful conversations, connections, ways to use the mix of gifts and curses I was given in a way that felt right to me and seemed to be good destiny-fulfillment (pardon me if that sounds hokey; the English language isn't really cooperating with what I'm trying to say -- I mean subjectively there, not an objective fate/destiny obviously).

Anyways -- you'll find that the people playing harder, larger games tend to be interesting, and the amount of variables, confounding factors, etc, to really give you a workout. More importantly -- you can use your talents for improving your personal well-being and the well-being of humanity-at-large simultaneously.

It's difficult to play hard big games, even getting into them is tricky. But the big hard games offer a chance to really put your mind and capacity to work, and the other people playing the big hard games tend to be really uniquely brilliant and complex and interesting.

Also -- thank you for your honest relating of your subjective experience, and for writing about the reasoning process... which I found really fascinating. I also found it fantastical on a first read, but looked to keep my mind open to it -- and your chain of reasoning seems sound. I think it's a new skill I didn't realize was quite available that would be interesting to train in.

To others besides bane -- don't read into this comment too much! It was a personal note. Bane -- thanks and godspeed, feel free to drop me an email sometime if there's some interesting complex problems on your mind.

Sebastian

The problem as I see it is that the potential exists, but there is no engagement on tackling hard problems.

My bad - I mispelled "Eggen" as "Eggers"