Einstein letters reveal a turmoil beyond science(boston.com)
boston.com
Einstein letters reveal a turmoil beyond science
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/11/einstein_letters_reveal_a_turmoil_beyond_science/
24 comments
It must have been hard for him and his family to have their private lives scrutinised by the world - it's not like he chose a profession likely to bring him world fame!
I'm in the middle of the Einstein bio by Isaacson, who uses many of the documents referred to in this 2006 article to paint Einstein's private life as it complimented his public works. (I certainly recommend the book to you all!)
One of Isaacson's main points is that it was not mere intellect that made Einstein superior. Great scientists, such as Poincare, were working in the same fields at the same time, but were conditioned within the realm of university research to hold on strong to the classical beliefs of Newtonian science. The four papers Einstein wrote in 1905 (written during his patent office period while he was essentially blacklisted from a position at a university) each had the benefit of his outsider voice. While his work in college was above average, it did not translate into genius until Einstein had the ability to generate, on his own, a complete theory of how he intellectually envisioned the world. More important than Einstein's given intellect was his particular perspective.
Anyways, I find judging intelligence by means of a test is absolutely pointless; IQ, in particular, measures only a few ways that a person can be intelligent.
In conclusion, as always: Genius is as genius does.
One of Isaacson's main points is that it was not mere intellect that made Einstein superior. Great scientists, such as Poincare, were working in the same fields at the same time, but were conditioned within the realm of university research to hold on strong to the classical beliefs of Newtonian science. The four papers Einstein wrote in 1905 (written during his patent office period while he was essentially blacklisted from a position at a university) each had the benefit of his outsider voice. While his work in college was above average, it did not translate into genius until Einstein had the ability to generate, on his own, a complete theory of how he intellectually envisioned the world. More important than Einstein's given intellect was his particular perspective.
Anyways, I find judging intelligence by means of a test is absolutely pointless; IQ, in particular, measures only a few ways that a person can be intelligent.
In conclusion, as always: Genius is as genius does.
Any way to read more about this or the transcripts of those letters? Sounds very interesting to me. Is the Hebrew Univ planning to put these online?
These letters will help know more about this great man and relate to him as a human than just merely knowing him as a scientific genius.
If these details are out as a book it would surely break all records and would become everyone's favourite.
Here's how he explained a radio:
A telegraph is like a long cat. You pull its tail in New York and it meows in Los Angeles. It's the same with a radio. You send the signals from on place and receive them at another, just that there is no long cat here.
These letters will help know more about this great man and relate to him as a human than just merely knowing him as a scientific genius.
If these details are out as a book it would surely break all records and would become everyone's favourite.
Here's how he explained a radio:
A telegraph is like a long cat. You pull its tail in New York and it meows in Los Angeles. It's the same with a radio. You send the signals from on place and receive them at another, just that there is no long cat here.
We will all study Einstein forever until so we can find out how to create people like him.
He was a very smart guy - but not much smarter a lot of people are today.
He was also a great marketer, mostly because he could explain his research to the press in terms people could understand.
He was also a great marketer, mostly because he could explain his research to the press in terms people could understand.
> He was a very smart guy - but not much smarter a lot of people are today.
I had this long reply written but then I realized that there probably isn't a quantitative way to prove your statement wrong.
Given that, I would appreciate it, if you could explain your statement. I think most people would assume a man of his accomplishments would certainly be more than "not much smarter" than alot of people today are.
I had this long reply written but then I realized that there probably isn't a quantitative way to prove your statement wrong.
Given that, I would appreciate it, if you could explain your statement. I think most people would assume a man of his accomplishments would certainly be more than "not much smarter" than alot of people today are.
I think most people would assume a man of his accomplishments would certainly be more than "not much smarter" than alot of people today are.
Einstein is commonly claimed to have had a +4 sigma g-strength (IQ of 160, on typical scales). Even assuming a normal curve, rather than the more-popularly-believed fat-tails curve, that would leave millions of people today with higher g-strengths than Einstein had.
Creativity and genius are unrelated to g except that a person's level of g acts as a threshold variable below which socially significant forms of creativity are highly improbable. This g threshold is probably at least one standard deviation above the mean level of g in the general population. Besides the traits that Galton though necessary for "eminence" (viz., high ability, zeal, and persistence), genius implies outstanding creativity as well. Thouhj such exceptional creativity is conspicuously lacking in the vast majority of people who have a high IQ, it is probably impossible to find any creative geniuses with low IQ's. In other words, high ability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the emergence of socially siginificant creativity. Genius itself should not be confused with merely high IQ, which is what we generally mean by the term "gifted" (which also applies to special talents such as music and art). True creativity involves more than just high ability. It is still uncertain what this is, but the most interesting theory I have seen spelled out in detail is Eysenck's. He hypothesizes that the essential personality factor in creative genius is what he terms trait psychoticism, which has a genetic basis and is explainanble in part in terms of brain chemistry and physiology. (The g Factor. Ch14, The g Nexus. pp577-578.)
This is Eysenck's book:
http://www.google.com/search?q=eysenck+genius
Einstein is commonly claimed to have had a +4 sigma g-strength (IQ of 160, on typical scales). Even assuming a normal curve, rather than the more-popularly-believed fat-tails curve, that would leave millions of people today with higher g-strengths than Einstein had.
.
Creativity and genius are unrelated to g except that a person's level of g acts as a threshold variable below which socially significant forms of creativity are highly improbable. This g threshold is probably at least one standard deviation above the mean level of g in the general population. Besides the traits that Galton though necessary for "eminence" (viz., high ability, zeal, and persistence), genius implies outstanding creativity as well. Thouhj such exceptional creativity is conspicuously lacking in the vast majority of people who have a high IQ, it is probably impossible to find any creative geniuses with low IQ's. In other words, high ability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the emergence of socially siginificant creativity. Genius itself should not be confused with merely high IQ, which is what we generally mean by the term "gifted" (which also applies to special talents such as music and art). True creativity involves more than just high ability. It is still uncertain what this is, but the most interesting theory I have seen spelled out in detail is Eysenck's. He hypothesizes that the essential personality factor in creative genius is what he terms trait psychoticism, which has a genetic basis and is explainanble in part in terms of brain chemistry and physiology. (The g Factor. Ch14, The g Nexus. pp577-578.)
This is Eysenck's book:
http://www.google.com/search?q=eysenck+genius
Great comment! Can persistent effort increase intelligence?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm...
Great comment!
Thank you.
Can persistent effort increase intelligence?
No. Why do you ask?
Thank you.
Can persistent effort increase intelligence?
No. Why do you ask?
Are you being sarcastic? Have a look at the link provided if you are not.
EDIT oh, I see: you thought I was asking you a question, but my question was an introduction to the linked article.
EDIT oh, I see: you thought I was asking you a question, but my question was an introduction to the linked article.
The article confuses work ethic and intelligence and ability. I think that although there's overlap, they're quite different things. And using grades as an intelligence indicator is horribly flawed.
Do you know of evidence that intelligence is not affected by effort?
I don't know of strong evidence either way. The fact that I think the article has no bearing on reality doesn't mean that I know what the reality actually is. I'm not sure what the best estimator of intelligence is -- perhaps the amount of time taken to pick up a completely alien concept -- but I've never seen an article thats convinced me of the changeability of intelligence in one way or another.
Those references don't seem to address my question about effort having an effect on intelligence. My question isn't about the heritability of intelligence, but whether effort (that is, training) can enhance one's intelligence. Let me explain with an analogous question:
Does athletic training increase athletic ability? In terms of strength, flexibility, aerobic fitness, speed, perception, assessment, reaction times, specific skills, strategy?
Do believe that mental exercise has no effect whatsoever on mental ability?
That would be contrary to everyday experience, and studies showing that a lack of stimulation (i.e. mental exercise) retards cognitive development. e.g. that the visual system does not develop without stimulus; that the speech centers do not develop unless exposed to speech within the window (closes at around 7yo).
EDIT interesting: "Breast feeding makes a huge difference, about 7 IQ points." http://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Inte...
Does athletic training increase athletic ability? In terms of strength, flexibility, aerobic fitness, speed, perception, assessment, reaction times, specific skills, strategy?
Do believe that mental exercise has no effect whatsoever on mental ability?
That would be contrary to everyday experience, and studies showing that a lack of stimulation (i.e. mental exercise) retards cognitive development. e.g. that the visual system does not develop without stimulus; that the speech centers do not develop unless exposed to speech within the window (closes at around 7yo).
EDIT interesting: "Breast feeding makes a huge difference, about 7 IQ points." http://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Inte...
Do believe that mental exercise has no effect whatsoever on mental ability?
You can definitely increase your ability. I don't think that's necessarily the same as changing your intelligence. I think the derivative of ability may be intelligence though -- ie, the rate at which you can increase your mental ability, as opposed to the level of ability. I also think that the increase in ability is probably asymptotic, and intelligence could affect the point at which it becomes extremely difficult to increase your ability.
You can definitely increase your ability. I don't think that's necessarily the same as changing your intelligence. I think the derivative of ability may be intelligence though -- ie, the rate at which you can increase your mental ability, as opposed to the level of ability. I also think that the increase in ability is probably asymptotic, and intelligence could affect the point at which it becomes extremely difficult to increase your ability.
Those references don't seem to address my question about effort having an effect on intelligence.
To paraphrase Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the Firefly class ship Serenity: "Well -- they do." Try checking the subject index of The g Factor:
Abecedarian Project, 342-44, 500, 522
Head Start, 337-39
Milwaukee Project, 500
Why would you think that a book called "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability" would only be about heritability?
Yes. Why do you ask?
What studies are those? Would you consider being locked 24 hours, seven days a week, in a dark attic with a deaf-mute mother, and no toys, to be adequate stimulation for a developing child? The child rescued from that situation turned out to have mentally-developed normally, including having a normal IQ. Read all about it, and other cases of rescue from severe adversity, here: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Early+Experience+and+the+L...
From birth to age six, Isabel [sic] was totally confined to a dim attic room, where she lived alone with her deaf-mute mother who was her only social contact. Except for food, shelter, and the presence of her mother, Isabel was reared in what amounted to a totally deprived environment. There were no toys, picture books, or gadgets of any kind for her to play with. When found by the auothorities, at age six, Isabel was tested and found to have a mental age of one year and seven months and an IQ of about 30, which is barely at the imbecile level. In many ways she behaved like a very young child; she had no speech and made only croaking sounds. When handed toys or other unfamiliar objects, she would immediately put them in her mouth, as infants normally do. Yet as soon as she was exposed to educational experiences, she acquired speech, vocabulary, and syntax at an astonishing rate and gained six years of tested mental age within just two years. By the age of eight, she had come up to a mental age of eight, and her level of achievement in school was on a par with her age-mates. ... She graduated from high school as an average student.
What all this means ... is that the neurological basis of information processing continued developing autonomously throughout the six years of Isabel's environmental deprivation, so that as soon as she was exposed to a normal environment she was able to learn those things for which she was developmentally "ready" at an extraordinarily fast rate, far beyond the rate for typically reared children over the period of six years over which their mental age normally increases from two to eight years. But the fast rate of manifest mental development slowed down to an average rate at the point where the level of mental development caught up with the level of neurological development. Clearly, the rate of mental development during childhood ... is largely based on the maturation of neural structures.
To paraphrase Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the Firefly class ship Serenity: "Well -- they do." Try checking the subject index of The g Factor:
Abecedarian Project, 342-44, 500, 522
Head Start, 337-39
Milwaukee Project, 500
.
Why would you think that a book called "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability" would only be about heritability?
.
Yes. Why do you ask?
.
What studies are those? Would you consider being locked 24 hours, seven days a week, in a dark attic with a deaf-mute mother, and no toys, to be adequate stimulation for a developing child? The child rescued from that situation turned out to have mentally-developed normally, including having a normal IQ. Read all about it, and other cases of rescue from severe adversity, here: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Early+Experience+and+the+L...
.
From birth to age six, Isabel [sic] was totally confined to a dim attic room, where she lived alone with her deaf-mute mother who was her only social contact. Except for food, shelter, and the presence of her mother, Isabel was reared in what amounted to a totally deprived environment. There were no toys, picture books, or gadgets of any kind for her to play with. When found by the auothorities, at age six, Isabel was tested and found to have a mental age of one year and seven months and an IQ of about 30, which is barely at the imbecile level. In many ways she behaved like a very young child; she had no speech and made only croaking sounds. When handed toys or other unfamiliar objects, she would immediately put them in her mouth, as infants normally do. Yet as soon as she was exposed to educational experiences, she acquired speech, vocabulary, and syntax at an astonishing rate and gained six years of tested mental age within just two years. By the age of eight, she had come up to a mental age of eight, and her level of achievement in school was on a par with her age-mates. ... She graduated from high school as an average student.
What all this means ... is that the neurological basis of information processing continued developing autonomously throughout the six years of Isabel's environmental deprivation, so that as soon as she was exposed to a normal environment she was able to learn those things for which she was developmentally "ready" at an extraordinarily fast rate, far beyond the rate for typically reared children over the period of six years over which their mental age normally increases from two to eight years. But the fast rate of manifest mental development slowed down to an average rate at the point where the level of mental development caught up with the level of neurological development. Clearly, the rate of mental development during childhood ... is largely based on the maturation of neural structures.
IQ != EQ
Are the full versions of the letters available online?
[deleted]