Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://www.surfonby.com/iqtest/iqfacts.html
http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Q&A/Q&A_2.htm
Multiple intelligences can be described with the computer metaphor as well (#5795)
Question:
You completely ignore Dr. Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences and put emphasis on only
two types of intelligence: linguistic and logical
Answer:
The model of a brain storing facts and rules used in problem solving encompasses most of
multiple intelligences. This goes far beyond the standard IQ which indeed has a linguistic and
logical bias. The interest of educators should focus on intelligence enhanced by expertise
(Definition 1). The variety of classes of expertise is large enough for the need to extract
common factors that make training efficient. Spatial intelligence is to logical intelligence as
geometry is to logic. It simply refers to a different substance (different facts and rules)
without changing the rules of engagement: training enhances skills in all forms of human
activity. Kinesthetic intelligence may have a strong genetic underpinnings but kinesthetic
training will also develop a set of new rules encoded in the neural network of the motor
system. The fact that these rules cannot be verbalized does not detract from the applicability
of the computer metaphor and brain's programmability. Inter-personal intelligence, here
referred to as social skills is a combination of an emotional profile of an individual
(Emotional IQ) and social expertise (facts and rules of efficient social conduct). Musical
expertise will combine "musical intelligence" or "talent" and a battery of procedural and
declarative rules developed in the course of musical training, etc. The formula based on
storing new facts and rules in memory via training is universal
Effective work does not have to imply losing the joy of life (just the opposite)
Question:
On one hand you insist that the reason must take rein over the weak body, but in another place
you encourage music, art, movies, sports, and religion because they are enjoyable! This is
contradictory
Answer:
As always, the key to resolving multicriterial optimization is balance of proportions. You
need to balance learning with creative work. Specialist with general knowledge. Work and
time for sleep or sports. Work and family, etc. Optimally, you should find maximum joy in
things you must do rather than do things because they are enjoyable. However, you cannot
hop over your physiological and psycho-emotional limitations. Let us consider an example:
let us assume your day starts with a breakfast during which you watch yesterday's CBS News,
and you follow that with repetitions in SuperMemo. Let us say your time allocation for both
activities is 80 minutes. You may be tempted to go for maximum work (repetitions) and
minimum relaxation (breakfast). However, you will quickly discover that there is an optimum
allocation of resources that maximizes your output. If you rush through a 5 min. breakfast and
interrupt watching the news in some interesting point, your enthusiasm for repetitions may be
less and ultimately your learning results less impressive. If, on the other hand, you let the
breakfast raise the glucose level in your blood, let the caffeine of your morning coffee kick in,
and let an inspiring piece of science news get you hungry for new knowledge, 25 min.
allocation for breakfast may appear more efficient overall. Enjoyability is your guidance here.
This example shows that you may be unable to overcome such limitations as the speed of
food absorption or even more malleable factors such as psychogenic motivation. You got to
listen to your body carefully. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy simply states that
psychophysiological needs have to be taken into account when managing your life and
productivity. Doing things you love is one of the simplest tricks you can use to increase
productivity without damaging your health. With time, it is likely that you will find more and
more joy in your work, and the borders between work, play, and relaxation will blend
A computer metaphor seems to be the simplest way of explaining the brain to non-
technical people
Question:
Every child knows that the brain operates as a neural network not as a serial digital computer -
your computer metaphor can lead to wrong conclusions!
Answer:
30 years ago, it would be very difficult to explain the way the brain works to an individual
with little knowledge of neuroscience or computing sciences. Today, most people seem to
understand the concepts of hardware and software. This opens a simple avenue towards
explaining the brain to an average man in the street. The computer metaphor partly solves the
problem of the representation of a genius brain in an average mind. A ball-and-stick model of
the Solar System cannot be used to encompass all properties of the planets (e.g. their size), but
it can excellently illustrate other properties (e.g. planetary configurations). Similarly, the
computer metaphor of the brain cannot be used to illustrate memory formation (we all wish
we could load memories like we load software), but it excellently illustrates brain's
programmability and its limitations
Delayed gratification skills develop slowly and are not a definite predictor of intellectual
development
Question:
Your statements on the importance of delayed gratification does not seem to apply to me. I
was an awful child. If I wanted a toy I would lie on the street and scream as loud as I could
until I got it. Today some people call me a genius. Am I an exception to the rule?
Answer:
Delayed gratification skills develop very slowly. In very young kids, they are almost non-
existent. They are strongly correlated with intellectual development. Your ability to put up a
fight for the toy might actually be an indicator of strongly developed motivational circuits.
This could produce a welcome rage to master. Later, your rational brain probably took reign
over these motivational circuits to help you persevere in whatever obstacles life throws at you.
Yelling and screaming for a toy clearly isn't a reason for worry as long as it is gradually
replaced with more efficient behavioral strategies
Sheldon experiment is the state of the art in the area of understanding human needs
Question:
Sheldon experiment is flawed: The students answered in socially accepted ways. I can
imagine they were afraid to admit to deriving satisfaction from money
Answer:
Sheldon experiment has been published in the reputable Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology published by the American Psychological Association, which is the largest
scientific and professional association representing psychology in the world. Flawed
experimentation could not pass the impermeable peer-review barrier of this journal. Sheldon
uses state of the art methodology in terms of theoretical background, data gathering, statistical
analysis and the assessment of experimental limitations. Sheldon admits that students of
psychology in the US and Korea are not representative to the entire population. He also
admits that factor analysis on the same emotional components in reference to events spanning
the lifetime might produce a different result. He builds on Maslow's theories and other sound
theories of human needs, but props his argument up by a solid experiment on a relatively large
sample (several hundred students). In conclusion, Sheldon's statements on what makes people
happy can be considered the state of art in this field of psychology. The original article
(including all tables and figures) is available from the American Psychological Association
website: http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp802325.html
All models are subject to misuse, which should not prevent modeling
Question:
I read Rod Brooks say (Brooks is director of the AI Lab at MIT): The fact that we use the
technology as a metaphor for ourselves really locks us into the way we think. We think about
human intelligence as these neurons with these electrical signals. When I was a kid the brain
was a telephone switching network, then it became a digital computer, then it became a
massively parallel digital computer. I'm sure there's a book out there now for kids that says
the brain is the World Wide Web, and everything's cross-linked
Answer:
Models may lock us in the way we think, but their main purpose is just the opposite: to
broaden our abstract reasoning. Until a better popular-scientific explanatory model is found,
the computer metaphor makes wonders in explaining the brain, e.g. in reference to the concept
of working out genius and creativity. Brooks spoke about the value of such a metaphor for
building artificially intelligent systems, not for explaining the brain to non-technical folks
Dr. Restak's ten factors for healthy brain functioning are: 1) education, 2) curiosity, 3) energy, 4) keeping busy,
5) regular exercise, 6) acceptance of unavoidable limitations, 7) the need for diversity and novelty, 8)
psychological continuity over the life span, 9) the maintenance of friends and social networks, and 10) the
establishment and fostering of links with younger people
Answer:
In Negative and positive emotions, hints to optimism, patience and stoic philosophy
encompass this important philosophical approach: accepting unavoidable internal and external
limitations. This belongs to highly-effective techniques for eliminating stress. Whatever you
cannot change should not leave any worrying mark on your mind. Unsolvable problems
should not take up the processor time. All brains are inherently different in their ability to
develop genius, but the main thesis of the article is that it does not affect the optimum
strategy: lifelong learning. Whatever your starting point, the strategy is the same: go ahead.
The only time mental limitations become highly relevant is when we identify a problem and
techniques that could be used to address it. In other words, limitations become very relevant
once they can be circumvented
Education as a formula for genius requires appropriate social and economical medium
Question:
Your statement that "a majority of population can reach today's standards of genius" is very
encouraging for the opening. However, I feel that there is a large number of our global
community whom the odds against achieving any standards is very slim under our present
systems, policies and attitudes towards education, social inclusion and fairness for all. For
example, in the most recent United Nations Human Development Report published recently, I
found that of 17 Western countries surveyed, Ireland had the second highest rate of poverty
(15.3%, or over half a million people). The only Western country that is worse than Ireland is
the U.S. (16.5% living in poverty). Britain comes in 15th, the table is headed by Sweden with
a rating of 6.8%. One major contributor to poverty is the high levels of functional illiteracy.
Almost 23% of the Irish population is illiterate while in Britain the figure is 20%. And this is
basic literacy tasks such as reading a bus time table. Another group of people in the poverty
trap are those with physical disabilities unable to find employment due to discrimination by
employers and companies failing to provide adequate facilities. The figure for unemployment
among people with disabilities is 70% in Ireland. These sample figures are shameful and
surely unacceptable in the Information Age. I suggest that creative imaginative thinking is
required, starting from the bottom up. Outdated antiquated thinking must be placed in the
annals of history and fresh all encompassing solutions be found. The bigger dilemma is for
the people of the third world who must endure absolute poverty, children forced into slavery,
armies, etc.
Answer:
You are absolutely right. This is exactly what worried Boris Sidis a century ago. The formula
for genius via training naturally involves a number of preconditions that are difficult to meet
for most of the population (peace, employment, access to education, access to health care,
housing, access to the Internet, etc). For reasons of this site's focus, the article focuses on
internal (or mental) barriers towards high intellectual achievement. There is no doubt that
external barriers are by far more formidable. Superficially, we could conclude that nothing's
changed since Boris Sidis's time. However, several powerful forces have come to play only
recently that bode well for an acceleration of positive change. This century was a century of
democracy with only six nations in the club in 1900. With the amazing liberation of Africa in
the 1960s and Eastern Europe in the 1990s, self-determination and, in part, democracy have
taken irreversible root. The other factor is the Internet. It will sprawl along the continents and
contribute to educating the Israelis about the Palestinians and vice versa. In summer 2000, the
first Internet cafe opened in Baghdad. China's Internet use is exploding. Forces of history take
decades to mold the planet, but we live in times when it no longer takes a lifetime to see
tangible progress. We are bombarded daily with signs of change which is overwhelmingly
positive. The Long Boom article from Wired is a recommended reading in this context
Chess grandmasters use different areas of their brain to plan chess moves
Question:
Except for theorizing, introspection and anecdote, is there really a scientific evidence that
great chess players "memorize" chess positions instead of just using their best intuition to
make good guesses?
Answer:
Yes. Grandmasters do use heuristics ("intuition") to pick the best rules to apply to the current
configuration of pieces. However, brain imaging shows that they use their frontal and parietal
cortex more extensively than amateur players who rather use medial temporal cortex involved
with new associations and working memory. In other words, brain scans indeed show that
grandmasters' planning is more of a retrieval process than it is the case with amateurs who
sweat through working analysis of possible move combinations
I only ask because, when I was 15 years old (I am now 23 y/o), my school had sent me to a
youth counselor (for disciplinary reasons), and the counselor had asked me to interpret a list
of idiomatic expressions, a few of which I had never heard before and had trouble
understanding (I understand them all now, and, in retrospect, it seems a bit funny to me that I
actually had difficulty understanding them at all). But I guess what I'm asking is, did my
failure to understand them reflect a larger learning disability? Should I have known them? Is it
normal that I had some difficulty with them? Were my answers to such questions supposed to
predict or determine my future intellectual ability? Does this actually even fall under
"logical/analytical" thinking? Is understanding such expressions a matter of simply reading
more--a matter of broader exposure--or is it innate? Does difficulty understanding them
simply reflect lack of reading (which can easily be remedied by more reading), or does it
reflect inherent ability? Can one really understand "an axe to grind" without hearing it in a
context, or must one learn it as a whole unit of vocabulary, as one might look up a word?
Needless to say, I am very familiar with all of these idioms now--and I don't quite remember
how and where I learned them.
Even though I suspect I know the answers to such questions, I think I still need some
validation. In the eight years that have elapsed since my sessions with that counselor, I never
once gave any thought to them until the other night, when, out of the blue, they just popped
into my head while I was reading. I am now in college, and this recalled memory has been
mentally and intellectually paralyzing. It has caused me to ponder many unsettling questions.
Even though I do great in school, I've never been one to place much stock in grades--I
somehow always fear that my professors made a mistake. And no matter what I get on an
exam or term paper, I always question my ability, and I am never satisfied. I am an
enthusiastic math major, and now I find myself wondering if my efforts are all for naught all
because of a few questions. It is these questions that have plunged me into a crisis of
confidence as I begin to question everything about myself, and my mind tends to latch onto
the more negative thoughts. Am I making too big a deal out of nothing?
Answer:
Understanding idiomatic expression is a reflection of the amount of past contact with a quality
language (esp. quality reading). To a retentive mind, less reading will be needed to capture the
meaning of idioms, but reading, listening, conversation, etc. are always the primary sources of
such knowledge. In other words, if a 15-year-old does not know these expressions, it speaks
of the volume of previous reading, yet predicates little on the actual mental faculties or the
potential for intellectual growth. After all, most idioms cannot be in any way decoded and
understood without prior explanation or without context.
To sum it up: yes, you do make too big a deal of it. If your mathematical skills have been
noticed, you should not be inhibited in pursuing a career in the field. You have already, or you
will polish your knowledge of idioms. Moreover, there are many science geniuses who
continually neglect their prose reading. Most likely, some Nobel prize winners do not know
some basic idioms either. Belief in your mental powers and your growth potential are
essential for your further progress. Lack of it is a powerful inhibitor. For that reason, the
faster you stop pondering over the issue, the better.
Incidentally, every could has a silver lining is far more popular than put a spoke in the wheel
(e.g. 100 times higher Google count). In other words, they should be applied to quite different
levels of linguistic proficiency. Both seem quite hard to test on a 15-year-old. Knowledge of
these expressions might be an optimistic indicator for a youngster. However, lack of this
idiomatic insight says very little of the individual at this age.
Chess grandmasters use different areas of their brain to plan chess moves
Question:
Except for theorizing, introspection and anecdote, is there really a scientific evidence that
great chess players "memorize" chess positions instead of just using their best intuition to
make good guesses?
Answer:
Yes. Grandmasters do use heuristics ("intuition") to pick the best rules to apply to the current
configuration of pieces. However, brain imaging shows that they use their frontal and parietal
cortex more extensively than amateur players who rather use medial temporal cortex involved
with new associations and working memory. In other words, brain scans indeed show that
grandmasters' planning is more of a retrieval process than it is the case with amateurs who
sweat through working analysis of possible move combinations
SuperMemo can be used for generating and organizing new ideas (#17778)
(Mark Zebitz , Denmark, Saturday, June 21, 2003 9:43 AM)
Question:
Is it possible to use SuperMemo as an Idea-generator?
Answer:
Yes. A little known and a scantly publicized value of incremental reading is its power to
combine unrelated pieces of information in the learn&review process. As the creative process
is strongly rooted in remote associations, incremental reading can make a powerful
contribution to forming new ideas. This will work less effectively if you try to come up with a
new advertising slogan. This may not work at all if you are a composer. However,
incremental reading may be an excellent tool in building scientific models. On one hand it
will help you build upon your own ideas, on the other, it can be used to resolve contradictions
in large bodies of data.
Remember to capitalize on your own physiology. You need to understand the mental states
favoring the creative process. You may get excellent results after your morning coffee. The
exactly same procedure applied when you are drowsy may produce nothing. See: Genius and
Creativity. Sadly, a creative personality and excellent command of incremental reading are
two important sine qua nons of success that may make this advice hard to follow
You can learn mathematics and problem solving with SuperMemo (#27294)
(SRD, WedAug11,2004 10:32 pm)
Question:
Mathematics is a field where the methods optimal for learning are well-known, and provide a
basis for generalizing to other fields. You say that mathematics is an exception because of its
deductive character. To learn mathematics, repetitive practice is essential. But the practice is
in solving problems, not reciting answers.
Answer:
MATHEMATICS IS NOT AN EXCEPTION: Amongst areas of application for SuperMemo,
mathematics is not exactly an exception. It is rather used as an example of a domain where
inferential knowledge dominates over factual knowledge. In the continuous spectrum of
applicability that runs from (1) fields that leave less room for SuperMemo (non-neural
learning, procedural learning, etc.) to (2) fields where SuperMemo shines (learning languages,
medical sciences, etc.), mathematics lies somewhere in the middle. SuperMemo will be
helpful for a mathematician, but it will not be as mission-critical as it is for a medical student.
What makes mathematics special is its power of abstraction. We can use it to model
reasoning, problem solving, creativity, etc. We can also model the learning process that leads
to developing a mind armed with powerful problem solving capability.
LEARNING RULES: (1) formula for changing the logarithm base demands little
practise as the application conditions are obvious and the use of the formula is trivial;
however, (2) the set of inference rules for derivations in mathematical logic is usually
best trained by proving a couple of propositions
LEARNING FACTS: the definition of the P value in statistics, the e constant is 2.72,
caloric contents of apples (for your applied mathematics of weight loss)
LEARNING DERIVATIONS: you will learn derivations only where derivations
matter (which may be quite often if you are indeed a mathematician). For the
understanding of dynamic processes in economics or biology, you will learn to solve a
differential equation and derive a sigmoid function. For the sake of understanding
physics, you may learn the derivation of the formula for the amount of heat released
under constant pressure from the first law of thermodynamics. For the sake of
enriching your mathematical trick-bag, you can learn the derivation of the partition
function in statistical mechanics. You will soon find out that learning derivations is
highly inspirational but also very expensive timewise
LEARNING DETERMINISTIC SOLUTIONS: how much is 1 minute of your time
worth? how much time are you willing to devote for the gain of $1?, when you need
answers instantly and there is little time for derivation, on rare occasions, you may
prefer to remember the literal answer rather than to derive it
LEARNING ALGORITHMIC SOLUTIONS: your question may be a mathematical
problem to solve. For example: what is the probability of three ATMs being down
given the three probabilities of each being down. Your answer may be formulated
simply as the solution to the problem (here a single number); however, at repetitions,
you derive the solution rather than recite it from memory. When you try it out, you
will see that in most cases derivation is simpler than recitation and the dangers of this
approach are little even if your self-discipline fails. Your learning material may appear
as a dumb collection of solutions, but the effect of repetition on your memory will
depend on how consistently you produce answers through derivation (it is "learning by
doing" the SuperMemo way)
LEARNING PATTERNS: learning to distinguish the conditions for applying
inference rules. For example, you may want to learn chess patterns in addition to
learning chess rules. Chess players use a specific mental representation of the
chessboard and their own person-specific mnemonic language to think of chess
positions and moves. Wherever conditions for rule application are non-trivial, you
may want to learn pattern matching too
MIXED STRATEGIES: while learning the value of 16x16, you may use the
multiplication algorithm (as in most cases of learning a multi-digit multiplication
table), you may use the binary algorithm (when instantly noticing that 16 is a power of
two), or you may simply remember that 16x16 is 256. You may decide that it is not
important which method you use to derive the answer, or you may formulate three
separate repetitive tasks labeled: multiply, binary and recall (obviously the third
approach is not recommended unless occurring naturally, i.e. you do indeed
spontaneously recall the answer without playing numbers in your mind)
LEARNING BY DOING: if you still believe in the irreducibility of learning by doing
to distilled facts and rules, you can store in SuperMemo the name of the book and the
number of a chapter with mathematical problems to solve. At each repetition, you can
randomly pick an instance of a problem to solve and learn a given rule by applying it
in practise. Thus you will delegate to SuperMemo only the care about refreshing
relevant memory traces underlying the least common neural denominator of the
problem to solve
There are neural networks you cannot easily reach, there are memory states that are not easy
to evoke, there is pattern matching that requires instantiation (learning by example), there are
expert behaviors that are difficult to formalize; however, SuperMemo, introspection and
learning by trial-and-error should be your powerful allies in understanding the basis of mental
processes underlying problem solving and creativity