19 y/o could change the world (SLNBC)
August 11, 2013 7:58 PM Subscribe
boy genuis in Nevada At age 14, Taylor Wilson built his own nuclear fusion reactor and now he aspires to change the world with inventions like mini nuclear power plants.
Too cold and sterile. Where's the heart?
posted by porn in the woods at 8:04 PM on August 11, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by porn in the woods at 8:04 PM on August 11, 2013 [7 favorites]
He built a fusion reactor? That's impressive.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:16 PM on August 11, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:16 PM on August 11, 2013 [7 favorites]
11-year-old British girl, has an IQ higher than Einstein
posted by stbalbach at 8:16 PM on August 11, 2013
posted by stbalbach at 8:16 PM on August 11, 2013
You know, by the time Gauss was 0.7, he only pooped on prime-numbered days.
posted by Nomyte at 8:27 PM on August 11, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by Nomyte at 8:27 PM on August 11, 2013 [12 favorites]
11-year-old British girl, has an IQ higher than Einstein
This really highlights the difficulty of getting properly normed dead people IQ tests.
posted by srboisvert at 8:27 PM on August 11, 2013 [27 favorites]
"And if you dont think he's serious, get this: at fourteen, Taylor built his own nuclear reactor. Which led us to wonder - how exactly do you raise a genius?"
Yes, anytime a person builds a nuclear reactor, that is naturally my first question.
posted by phaedon at 8:34 PM on August 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
Yes, anytime a person builds a nuclear reactor, that is naturally my first question.
posted by phaedon at 8:34 PM on August 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
He built it out of what, Lego?
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 8:40 PM on August 11, 2013
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 8:40 PM on August 11, 2013
At age 14, Taylor Wilson built his own nuclear fusion reactor and now he aspires to change the world with inventions like mini nuclear power plants.
And the bold new ideas these tiny tykes unveil for us today could make thousands of jobs like yours obsolete!
posted by Drinky Die at 8:43 PM on August 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
And the bold new ideas these tiny tykes unveil for us today could make thousands of jobs like yours obsolete!
posted by Drinky Die at 8:43 PM on August 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
He built it out of what, Lego?
He went to a local university, found a nuclear physicist who then gave him lab space.
The reaction wasn't self-sustaining, but I'll cut the kids some slack.
posted by GuyZero at 8:48 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
He went to a local university, found a nuclear physicist who then gave him lab space.
The reaction wasn't self-sustaining, but I'll cut the kids some slack.
posted by GuyZero at 8:48 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
The strangest thing (or maybe the most banal thing) is that whenever I see blurbs about children in camps for the gifted or academic competition winners, "built a nuclear reactor" is always one of the entries. It really makes me wonder if there is a kit somewhere, or an Instructables project. It's kind of like every engineer and programmer wants to make a DIY sous vide apparatus by attaching a microcontroller to a slow cooker. And to a journalist writing a fluff piece, it's very convenient shorthand for "supervillain-level smart."
posted by Nomyte at 8:52 PM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Nomyte at 8:52 PM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Also, I just realized that I made an identical comment almost exactly two years ago in response to a young supergenius post almost exactly like this one.
posted by Nomyte at 8:54 PM on August 11, 2013
posted by Nomyte at 8:54 PM on August 11, 2013
He built it out of what, Lego?
I assume he built a Farnsworth fusor, which AFAICT doesn't require anything remotely exotic. Not to take away from his achievement -- the number of fusors I have built is zero and will remain zero -- but fusors seem to be *relatively* common amateur projects.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:58 PM on August 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
I assume he built a Farnsworth fusor, which AFAICT doesn't require anything remotely exotic. Not to take away from his achievement -- the number of fusors I have built is zero and will remain zero -- but fusors seem to be *relatively* common amateur projects.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:58 PM on August 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
Sounds like Oliver Wendell Jones.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:08 PM on August 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:08 PM on August 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
-Yup, I built a nuclear fusion reactor
-My radical plan for small nuclear fission
posted by kliuless at 9:19 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
-My radical plan for small nuclear fission
posted by kliuless at 9:19 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I assume he built a Farnsworth fusor
Good news, everyone!
posted by bicyclefish at 9:19 PM on August 11, 2013 [47 favorites]
Good news, everyone!
posted by bicyclefish at 9:19 PM on August 11, 2013 [47 favorites]
I'm betting he had a lot of help. Most of the 'kid genius' stories I've seen end up revealing that later. It's still pretty impressive - I bet it boils down to a college undergraduate level project. But I'm sure it's not a crazy new physics thing he did all by himself, because that just does not happen at our current stage in the subject.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:20 PM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:20 PM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
I always wonder why these kinds of stories have to make the kid out to be a super-genius. To me, it makes the whole story less credible. A story about a promising young athlete isn't going to pretend that they can outplay adult professionals, but for some reason a promising young scientist has to be smarter than everyone in the entire world. Plus it obviously can't be good for them.
But I do think 14 is probably old enough to build a reactor without much help, especially if it's already been done.
posted by vogon_poet at 10:14 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
But I do think 14 is probably old enough to build a reactor without much help, especially if it's already been done.
posted by vogon_poet at 10:14 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Oh sure, he's a "boy genius" but I was an "existential threat to the very existence of the human race".
posted by fallingbadgers at 10:32 PM on August 11, 2013 [20 favorites]
posted by fallingbadgers at 10:32 PM on August 11, 2013 [20 favorites]
vogon_poet I always wonder why these kinds of stories have to make the kid out to be a super-genius. To me, it makes the whole story less credible. A story about a promising young athlete isn't going to pretend that they can outplay adult professionals, but for some reason a promising young scientist has to be smarter than everyone in the entire world. Plus it obviously can't be good for them.
But I do think 14 is probably old enough to build a reactor without much help, especially if it's already been done.
Because they want to make it sound like Hollywood science, which impresses people, and people don't know enough about how science is actually done to know how implausible it is. A more realistic appraisal like "This high school freshman is doing physics at the level of an advanced college undergraduate!" won't get as much attention, despite still being pretty damn impressive.
As far as making a reactor without help at 14, would you even let a 14-year old do anything in a university physics research lab without careful instruction and supervision? Physics equipment is dangerous! Lots of high voltages, radiation sources, dangerous chemicals, lasers, etc. Safety alone would demand he receive close assistance. Plus, a lot of science equipment (at least in biology, which is what I'm familiar with) is pretty user-hostile and arcane. No matter how smart you are, you're not going to just magically know how to use this stuff, and some techniques are not easily learned from a book.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:35 PM on August 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
But I do think 14 is probably old enough to build a reactor without much help, especially if it's already been done.
Because they want to make it sound like Hollywood science, which impresses people, and people don't know enough about how science is actually done to know how implausible it is. A more realistic appraisal like "This high school freshman is doing physics at the level of an advanced college undergraduate!" won't get as much attention, despite still being pretty damn impressive.
As far as making a reactor without help at 14, would you even let a 14-year old do anything in a university physics research lab without careful instruction and supervision? Physics equipment is dangerous! Lots of high voltages, radiation sources, dangerous chemicals, lasers, etc. Safety alone would demand he receive close assistance. Plus, a lot of science equipment (at least in biology, which is what I'm familiar with) is pretty user-hostile and arcane. No matter how smart you are, you're not going to just magically know how to use this stuff, and some techniques are not easily learned from a book.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:35 PM on August 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
He built a 'fission' reactor at 14, not a 'fusion' reactor. Fission is the stuff that happens in older nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines. Fusion is what happens in the Sun.
posted by ZaneJ. at 10:48 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by ZaneJ. at 10:48 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I always wonder why these kinds of stories have to make the kid out to be a super-genius.
Whenever someone asks about how one becomes (what they consider to be) a "computer genius," I generally point out that "95% of it boils down to 'being good at following instructions.'"
(I am not a computer genius but have occasionally been misidentified as one)
posted by ShutterBun at 11:04 PM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
Whenever someone asks about how one becomes (what they consider to be) a "computer genius," I generally point out that "95% of it boils down to 'being good at following instructions.'"
(I am not a computer genius but have occasionally been misidentified as one)
posted by ShutterBun at 11:04 PM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
"He built a 'fission' reactor at 14, not a 'fusion' reactor. Fission is the stuff that happens in older nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines. Fusion is what happens in the Sun."
No, he built a fusion reactor. You can tell this because of the discussion of plasma. What makes it ordinary is that it's not self-sustaining. Although you're right that a fission reactor would be technically easier, it also would be a Big Deal for environmental and safety reasons and would actually be more noteworthy.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:15 PM on August 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
No, he built a fusion reactor. You can tell this because of the discussion of plasma. What makes it ordinary is that it's not self-sustaining. Although you're right that a fission reactor would be technically easier, it also would be a Big Deal for environmental and safety reasons and would actually be more noteworthy.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:15 PM on August 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
What would Sheldon Cooper say?
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 11:35 PM on August 11, 2013
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 11:35 PM on August 11, 2013
Bloody swot.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:20 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MartinWisse at 12:20 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wouldn't anybody building a workable nuclear fusion reactor get bigger news than this has? Why is there this color feature "look at this unique teen" thing going on? Is this not a workable system?
posted by queensissy at 12:37 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by queensissy at 12:37 AM on August 12, 2013
So, for every million idiots that blot our species we receive one genius that takes us one step further.
posted by qinn at 1:52 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by qinn at 1:52 AM on August 12, 2013
The strangest thing (or maybe the most banal thing) is that whenever I see blurbs about children in camps for the gifted or academic competition winners, "built a nuclear reactor" is always one of the entries.
As has been said, he almost certainly built a Farnsworth Fusor which a GIS reveals plenty of them out there.
The problem with the Farnsworth Fusor is that it is theoretically impossible to achieve breakeven with one due to the shadows cast by the electrodes. The best hope we have for this kind of fusion achieving breakeven is polywell technology which uses a magnetic field which mostly seems to come from millions of dollars in DoD funding and venture capital (rather than the dreams of youth).
A California company, EMC2, and several other groups are currently working on this technology.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:10 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
As has been said, he almost certainly built a Farnsworth Fusor which a GIS reveals plenty of them out there.
The problem with the Farnsworth Fusor is that it is theoretically impossible to achieve breakeven with one due to the shadows cast by the electrodes. The best hope we have for this kind of fusion achieving breakeven is polywell technology which uses a magnetic field which mostly seems to come from millions of dollars in DoD funding and venture capital (rather than the dreams of youth).
A California company, EMC2, and several other groups are currently working on this technology.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:10 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wouldn't anybody building a workable nuclear fusion reactor get bigger news than this has? Why is there this color feature "look at this unique teen" thing going on? Is this not a workable system?
We can build fusion reactors easily enough. What we can't do is get a sustained fusion reaction that puts out more energy than breakeven, as would be required to use it as a power source.
posted by solarion at 2:12 AM on August 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
We can build fusion reactors easily enough. What we can't do is get a sustained fusion reaction that puts out more energy than breakeven, as would be required to use it as a power source.
posted by solarion at 2:12 AM on August 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yes, he did build a fusion reactor, from an existing design, no it wasn't a self-sustaining one and hence not revolutionary, but yes thats still a big achievement because
I have [...] a Farnsworth Fusor reactor. I am the youngest person in the world to create Nuclear Fusion and the 31st person to do it privately outside of government and industry. With the reactor I have the capability to make stable elements radioactive, and I conduct research in the fields of basic fusion science, homeland security, and nuclear medicine.posted by memebake at 2:14 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't anybody building a workable nuclear fusion reactor get bigger news than this has?
I have a device in my kitchen that is busy spewing beta particles and anti-neutrinos all over the place which has, thus far, failed to get any recognition from the press. You can have one too!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:16 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have a device in my kitchen that is busy spewing beta particles and anti-neutrinos all over the place which has, thus far, failed to get any recognition from the press. You can have one too!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:16 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is this child played by a 14-year-old Dominic Monaghan?
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:59 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:59 AM on August 12, 2013
> It really makes me wonder if there is a kit somewhere, or an Instructables project.
When I had an interview for a physics course at university, the guy before me was bubbling about how he had assembled his own reactor. I believe it was from one of those hobbyist "receive a new part every week for six quid" magazines, and my interviewer spent part of my interview just straight taking the piss out of him for it.
Ever since I've had a nagging voice in my head when I see these stories which says "oh you built a nuclear reactor did you? How trivial", even though the idea is still pretty magic to me.
posted by lucidium at 3:22 AM on August 12, 2013
When I had an interview for a physics course at university, the guy before me was bubbling about how he had assembled his own reactor. I believe it was from one of those hobbyist "receive a new part every week for six quid" magazines, and my interviewer spent part of my interview just straight taking the piss out of him for it.
Ever since I've had a nagging voice in my head when I see these stories which says "oh you built a nuclear reactor did you? How trivial", even though the idea is still pretty magic to me.
posted by lucidium at 3:22 AM on August 12, 2013
Also, Farnsworth Fusors look so amazingly 60's sci fi I'm having a hard time believing they're actually real. Look how fantastic it is!
posted by lucidium at 3:29 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by lucidium at 3:29 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Tony Stark to the white courtesy phone. Tony Stark, white courtesy phone. Thank you.
posted by fight or flight at 3:43 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by fight or flight at 3:43 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I can't help but wonder how much money it costs to build a fusion reactor, and where a 14-year-old gets that money.
And from Taylor's page:
The Davidson Academy is the only school of its kind in the nation and caters to the Profoundly Gifted in the top one tenth of one percent of the population.
Davidson Academy is public and tuition-free, but since it's a day school I'm guessing your parents have to move to Reno.
And as a former smart kid, the description of this school (the website emphasizes "serving PROFOUNDLY gifted students" with in its header, in case a dumb happens to find the site, or there was any doubt that these kids are no ordinary Rattata) makes me a little queasy. Thank goodness I went to a public school and a non-Ivy college, and never once made the news, so at least only people I know can be disappointed at my wasted potential. I hope Taylor grows up into a well-adjusted, healthy adult, more than I hope he makes any major scientific discoveries.
posted by Metroid Baby at 3:44 AM on August 12, 2013 [8 favorites]
And from Taylor's page:
The Davidson Academy is the only school of its kind in the nation and caters to the Profoundly Gifted in the top one tenth of one percent of the population.
Davidson Academy is public and tuition-free, but since it's a day school I'm guessing your parents have to move to Reno.
And as a former smart kid, the description of this school (the website emphasizes "serving PROFOUNDLY gifted students" with in its header, in case a dumb happens to find the site, or there was any doubt that these kids are no ordinary Rattata) makes me a little queasy. Thank goodness I went to a public school and a non-Ivy college, and never once made the news, so at least only people I know can be disappointed at my wasted potential. I hope Taylor grows up into a well-adjusted, healthy adult, more than I hope he makes any major scientific discoveries.
posted by Metroid Baby at 3:44 AM on August 12, 2013 [8 favorites]
They look really cool, but the glow is just a hydrogen discharge tube with an interestingly shaped electrode. When you get down to it, it isn't that different from the "scary silhouette" light bulbs that were all the rage in the nineties. The impressive part isn't slowed down much by the backs of your eyes so you don't see it.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:58 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:58 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's nothing. When I was his age I built a volcano.
posted by Bonzai at 4:24 AM on August 12, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by Bonzai at 4:24 AM on August 12, 2013 [9 favorites]
I also was called a "boy genius" among other things for my particle accelerator work in high school. I also caught a lot of flack from people who either didn't believe it or assumed my patents did all the work. A Farnsworth fusor is indeed an ambitious project, but as noted earlier, they are not that uncommon. I hope people actually read the article before pulling a TL;DR and poo-pooing his accomplishments. Its just knee-jerking in response to what amounts to lazy journalism. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of thing I can say it does sting a bit- even now, 20 years later. I may have been smart, driven, and lucky but I'm no "young Einstein" or "boy genius." The accomplishment will follow him forever - and to quote Tim Koeth in Symmetry Magazine
posted by cyclotronboy at 4:36 AM on August 12, 2013 [10 favorites]
"If you build one in high school, it will get you into college. If you build one in college it will get you into grad school, and so on," Koeth says. "It's a distinction that will never leave you."
posted by cyclotronboy at 4:36 AM on August 12, 2013 [10 favorites]
What would Sheldon Cooper say?
ZIMBABWE
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:42 AM on August 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
ZIMBABWE
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:42 AM on August 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
No nukes.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:50 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:50 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Artw: How is David Hahn doing these days?
By the look of his face in his latest mugshot, up to his old tricks.
posted by dr_dank at 6:19 AM on August 12, 2013
By the look of his face in his latest mugshot, up to his old tricks.
posted by dr_dank at 6:19 AM on August 12, 2013
Also, Farnsworth Fusors look so amazingly 60's sci fi I'm having a hard time believing they're actually real. Look how fantastic it is!
Heh - if you had told me that was a still from Forbidden Planet or This Island Earth I would have believed you.
posted by aught at 6:37 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Heh - if you had told me that was a still from Forbidden Planet or This Island Earth I would have believed you.
posted by aught at 6:37 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Fission is the stuff that happens in older nuclear weapons
Fission happens in all nuclear weapons, and googling suggests is the primary source of destructive power even in modern thermonuclear weapons.
Modern thermonuclear weapons seem to be basically a Nagasaki-style bomb right next to a complex assembly of U-235, U-238, and lithium deuteride, all wrapped up in a U-238 (depleted uranium) casing.
You set off the Nagasaki-style bomb and its little hell causes the second stage to implode hard enough that the lithium deuteride starts fusion. This makes even more destructive power, which is good if you're into that sort of thing. It also spews an ungodly amount of neutrons every which way. Now, we can't let those lovely neutrons go to waste just killing people directly, mercy me no. Does not apply to neutron weapons That's why we put everything in a DU jacket -- so many neutrons are spilling out of the fusion reaction that they cause the DU casing to fission (along with "burning" just about all the remaining fissile material from the Nagasaki-style bomb and the second stage). The end result is that half or more of of the kilotons in a modern weapon come from fission.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:12 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Fission happens in all nuclear weapons, and googling suggests is the primary source of destructive power even in modern thermonuclear weapons.
Modern thermonuclear weapons seem to be basically a Nagasaki-style bomb right next to a complex assembly of U-235, U-238, and lithium deuteride, all wrapped up in a U-238 (depleted uranium) casing.
You set off the Nagasaki-style bomb and its little hell causes the second stage to implode hard enough that the lithium deuteride starts fusion. This makes even more destructive power, which is good if you're into that sort of thing. It also spews an ungodly amount of neutrons every which way. Now, we can't let those lovely neutrons go to waste just killing people directly, mercy me no. Does not apply to neutron weapons That's why we put everything in a DU jacket -- so many neutrons are spilling out of the fusion reaction that they cause the DU casing to fission (along with "burning" just about all the remaining fissile material from the Nagasaki-style bomb and the second stage). The end result is that half or more of of the kilotons in a modern weapon come from fission.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:12 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
This young lad shows promise. I'm glad to know about him.
posted by rmmcclay at 7:16 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by rmmcclay at 7:16 AM on August 12, 2013
Sounds like Oliver Wendell Jones.
But do they even make glow-in-the-dark watches anymore? "Fire drill, people!"
posted by yerfatma at 8:09 AM on August 12, 2013
But do they even make glow-in-the-dark watches anymore? "Fire drill, people!"
posted by yerfatma at 8:09 AM on August 12, 2013
I don't know how bright this kid is or isn't (I'm guessing you don't get invited to CERN or get awarded a Thiel Fellowship if you're just doing assembly-kit science project stuff). I'll bet he's bright enough to be able to figure out how to Google "Taylor Wilson" before opining about what a putz Taylor Wilson must be on Metafilter, though.
posted by yoink at 9:55 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by yoink at 9:55 AM on August 12, 2013
Looking at his website here, all I have to say is: buy some lead-lined underwear kid, if you want to have any kids yourself.
posted by GuyZero at 10:40 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by GuyZero at 10:40 AM on August 12, 2013
For everyone saying, pssh, fusion reactor, how droll, maybe you should watch the video, because the kid has got you covered.
This isn't a new phenomenon -- you can go back through the archives to see the reception that kids like Chance Ruder and Aaron Swartz got, and they were actually members here -- but, for a community that prides itself on extolling intelligence and achievement, it is extremely fucking depressing.
posted by Errant at 11:18 AM on August 12, 2013 [6 favorites]
VO: But creating fusion wasn't the end. It was the beginning.I mean, I know around here we simultaneously lament the death of science education and can't wait to piss on anyone who seems smarter than us earlier than us, but when you're not saying anything the subject of the video hasn't already said or thought at the moment of his achievement, I'm not sure how much signal you're contributing beyond an invitation to the suspicion that you haven't clicked the link and an implicit sense of your own gnawing envy.
TW: In that moment, I thought, yeah, well, fusion's cool, but this isn't particularly novel. I want to go out and actually do something now. I want a challenge.
VO: Since then, he's invented a cheaper way to make medical isotopes for cancer detection and treatment. He's also built a screening system that will detect nuclear material smuggled in shipping containers.
TW: The plan is to put ten of these things out there in ports for 6 months, kind of like a beta test. But, no, I've proven that this thing can detect weapons-grade plutonium.
This isn't a new phenomenon -- you can go back through the archives to see the reception that kids like Chance Ruder and Aaron Swartz got, and they were actually members here -- but, for a community that prides itself on extolling intelligence and achievement, it is extremely fucking depressing.
posted by Errant at 11:18 AM on August 12, 2013 [6 favorites]
mostly seems to come from millions of dollars in DoD
Don't forget here, any decently advanced technology developed in the states will go the military first, and stay there for decades unless also discovered elsewhere at similar times. History has proven this, and it will prove it again.
posted by usagizero at 12:25 PM on August 12, 2013
Don't forget here, any decently advanced technology developed in the states will go the military first, and stay there for decades unless also discovered elsewhere at similar times. History has proven this, and it will prove it again.
posted by usagizero at 12:25 PM on August 12, 2013
For everyone saying, pssh, fusion reactor
I'm guessing it wasn't clear, but I didn't mean "pssh, fusion reactor" but only "he's done something that's believable for a very smart, precocious 14 year old with access to a good assortment of lab equipment because there's nothing particularly exotic or expensive about it, and it doesn't require new theory."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:54 PM on August 12, 2013
I'm guessing it wasn't clear, but I didn't mean "pssh, fusion reactor" but only "he's done something that's believable for a very smart, precocious 14 year old with access to a good assortment of lab equipment because there's nothing particularly exotic or expensive about it, and it doesn't require new theory."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:54 PM on August 12, 2013
This isn't a new phenomenon -- you can go back through the archives to see the reception that kids like Chance Ruder and Aaron Swartz got, and they were actually members here -- but, for a community that prides itself on extolling intelligence and achievement, it is extremely fucking depressing.
Yes, I agree that anti-intellectualism is a big problem in American society. Yes, we often fail to recognize important new developments and emerging key figures.
But I also think that the kind of coverage that Wilson and similar young achievers get is insidious. It's reflects a naive and pernicious way of thinking about achievement and education.
First, it begs the question that human knowledge is advanced through breakthroughs that exceptional individuals make. This is a hero myth. Most advances are made by the work of hundreds and thousands of people. Science and technology is the incremental work of communities working together.
Second, and worse, it begs the question that genius succeeds in a vacuum. In reality, people, even extremely talented people, need support to succeed. They need instruction, they need mentoring, they need resources and facilities, and so on. But in the genius narrative, they are just born exceptional, then descend into the basement and emerge with a working prototype.
An example of this is the Thiel fellowship, of which Wilson is a recipient. This fellowship is a PR stunt to demonstrate that higher education is superfluous. You may have noticed the systematic defunding of public education at every level from preschool to post-secondary: the attitude that actually smart people don't need education goes hand in glove with that phenomenon.
But when you actually examine the background of "profoundly gifted" kids, you'll notice that they have extensive support networks, that they come from families of engineers, researchers, and successful academics, that they have privileged access to tools and resources and all those other things that the "genius in a vacuum" narrative kind of sweeps under the rug. And wealthy families are certainly very anxious to place their children into special and gifted programs, enroll them in very well-funded private schools, provide them with enrichment, tutoring, and test prep assistance, and otherwise provide them with every hallmark of a high-quality traditional education.
So one major reason why puff pieces about child prodigies get some pushback is that they're part of a naive and dangerous worldview. One of the reasons we, as a society, have an education system is to help more people be successful. The idealized figure of the child prodigy is a disingenuous counterargument. But idealized child prodigies don't make very good role models for how people get educated or how science is done.
posted by Nomyte at 12:57 PM on August 12, 2013 [7 favorites]
Yes, I agree that anti-intellectualism is a big problem in American society. Yes, we often fail to recognize important new developments and emerging key figures.
But I also think that the kind of coverage that Wilson and similar young achievers get is insidious. It's reflects a naive and pernicious way of thinking about achievement and education.
First, it begs the question that human knowledge is advanced through breakthroughs that exceptional individuals make. This is a hero myth. Most advances are made by the work of hundreds and thousands of people. Science and technology is the incremental work of communities working together.
Second, and worse, it begs the question that genius succeeds in a vacuum. In reality, people, even extremely talented people, need support to succeed. They need instruction, they need mentoring, they need resources and facilities, and so on. But in the genius narrative, they are just born exceptional, then descend into the basement and emerge with a working prototype.
An example of this is the Thiel fellowship, of which Wilson is a recipient. This fellowship is a PR stunt to demonstrate that higher education is superfluous. You may have noticed the systematic defunding of public education at every level from preschool to post-secondary: the attitude that actually smart people don't need education goes hand in glove with that phenomenon.
But when you actually examine the background of "profoundly gifted" kids, you'll notice that they have extensive support networks, that they come from families of engineers, researchers, and successful academics, that they have privileged access to tools and resources and all those other things that the "genius in a vacuum" narrative kind of sweeps under the rug. And wealthy families are certainly very anxious to place their children into special and gifted programs, enroll them in very well-funded private schools, provide them with enrichment, tutoring, and test prep assistance, and otherwise provide them with every hallmark of a high-quality traditional education.
So one major reason why puff pieces about child prodigies get some pushback is that they're part of a naive and dangerous worldview. One of the reasons we, as a society, have an education system is to help more people be successful. The idealized figure of the child prodigy is a disingenuous counterargument. But idealized child prodigies don't make very good role models for how people get educated or how science is done.
posted by Nomyte at 12:57 PM on August 12, 2013 [7 favorites]
"I mean, I know around here we simultaneously lament the death of science education and can't wait to piss on anyone who seems smarter than us earlier than us, but when you're not saying anything the subject of the video hasn't already said or thought at the moment of his achievement, I'm not sure how much signal you're contributing beyond an invitation to the suspicion that you haven't clicked the link and an implicit sense of your own gnawing envy."
I'm not really seeing that in this thread. What I'm seeing is a response to the extreme in the other direction presented by the media. Some people reading this thread knew only enough that fusion is a Big Deal and a subject of intense and expensive research and therefore concluded that this is a much more significant achievement than it really is.
The media and general public is so scientifically illiterate that all the fictional "scientist" characters are geniuses who know everything about stellar physics to volcanology to molecular biology. And there's the notion that all scientific advancement comes from Einstein-like geniuses making breakthroughs. So real-life prodigies like this kid are presented in the context of this naive narrative about science and genius.
It's extremely unlikely that this kid will produce any sort of important groundbreaking work that it's implied that he will. This sort of brilliance doesn't account for the majority of scientific progress even though there's a larger proportion of such unusual intellects working in science. Most of them are no more productive than their peers. Many of them are less productive. So we have the irony that the reality is that genius in science is not that uncommon yet it's also not that strongly correlated to scientific productivity — certainly not as much as people think that it is.
So stories like this are playing into a kind of mythology about science that misrepresents the reality of it. Worse, though, are how this affects the development and lives of these child prodigies. The expectations of genius breakthroughs will be a millstone around his neck for his whole life. He's unlikely to live up to these expectations and even if he does, it will only be what was expected of him and he'll be expected to do it again, which he probably wouldn't. There's no way for him to meet these expectations and in this interview you can tell that he's internalized this view of who he is and what he will be.
This media isn't doing him any good and it's not doing science any good. It's reinforcing popular misunderstandings about science and it's reinforcing unhealthy views of this kid, especially with regard to his own self-image.
None of that means that his accomplishments aren't impressive, because they are. He certainly isn't ordinary and he deserves praise and respect for what's he achieved. But how we view him and how he views himself should be somewhere in between these extreme Einstein comparisons and "that's no big deal" dismissals.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:06 PM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm not really seeing that in this thread. What I'm seeing is a response to the extreme in the other direction presented by the media. Some people reading this thread knew only enough that fusion is a Big Deal and a subject of intense and expensive research and therefore concluded that this is a much more significant achievement than it really is.
The media and general public is so scientifically illiterate that all the fictional "scientist" characters are geniuses who know everything about stellar physics to volcanology to molecular biology. And there's the notion that all scientific advancement comes from Einstein-like geniuses making breakthroughs. So real-life prodigies like this kid are presented in the context of this naive narrative about science and genius.
It's extremely unlikely that this kid will produce any sort of important groundbreaking work that it's implied that he will. This sort of brilliance doesn't account for the majority of scientific progress even though there's a larger proportion of such unusual intellects working in science. Most of them are no more productive than their peers. Many of them are less productive. So we have the irony that the reality is that genius in science is not that uncommon yet it's also not that strongly correlated to scientific productivity — certainly not as much as people think that it is.
So stories like this are playing into a kind of mythology about science that misrepresents the reality of it. Worse, though, are how this affects the development and lives of these child prodigies. The expectations of genius breakthroughs will be a millstone around his neck for his whole life. He's unlikely to live up to these expectations and even if he does, it will only be what was expected of him and he'll be expected to do it again, which he probably wouldn't. There's no way for him to meet these expectations and in this interview you can tell that he's internalized this view of who he is and what he will be.
This media isn't doing him any good and it's not doing science any good. It's reinforcing popular misunderstandings about science and it's reinforcing unhealthy views of this kid, especially with regard to his own self-image.
None of that means that his accomplishments aren't impressive, because they are. He certainly isn't ordinary and he deserves praise and respect for what's he achieved. But how we view him and how he views himself should be somewhere in between these extreme Einstein comparisons and "that's no big deal" dismissals.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:06 PM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm guessing it wasn't clear, but I didn't mean "pssh, fusion reactor" but only "he's done something that's believable for a very smart, precocious 14 year old with access to a good assortment of lab equipment because there's nothing particularly exotic or expensive about it, and it doesn't require new theory."
But, I mean, he says pretty much exactly that in the video; he says explicitly that it is cool, but not novel, and not particularly challenging. So I'm not sure what mythic narrative you and others believe that you are puncturing.
But I also think that the kind of coverage that Wilson and similar young achievers get is insidious. It's reflects a naive and pernicious way of thinking about achievement and education.
Do you think that the coverage that older achievers get is similarly pernicious? Does it reflect an ultimately debilitating achievement model to profile Feynman or Sagan or Bill Gates? Your argument seems to be that profiling people who have achieved some intellectual height without higher education causes people to devalue higher education. While I can see how that could get spun that way, it's in our narrative nature to be impressed by the unusual, in part because we recognize it as unusual. Mozart's success didn't cause the collapse of conversatories around Europe, and college admissions have increased massively since Bill Gates cofounded Microsoft.
The video doesn't show a prodigy on his own. It takes great pains to demonstrate the aid he's received from foundations, institutions, and mentors. It portrays him as remarkable, yes, but he is remarkable, and he's a pretty interesting and engaging young man as well.
But this idea that "puff pieces about child prodigies...are part of a naive and dangerous worldview"... I mean, compared to what, not noticing, acknowledging, or celebrating prodigies or genius? That strikes me as a far more damaging form of anti-intellectualism. You seem to be arguing that calling attention to extraordinary achievement necessarily undermines the mechanisms of ordinary achievement, and I just don't understand that perspective at all.
What I'm seeing is a response to the extreme in the other direction presented by the media. Some people reading this thread knew only enough that fusion is a Big Deal and a subject of intense and expensive research and therefore concluded that this is a much more significant achievement than it really is.
The subject of the piece, in the piece, says explicitly that it is not a particularly significant achievement! Are you absolutely sure that it is the media perpetuating a shallow view of science, and that you are not perpetuating your own notion of how shallow scientific media is?
It's extremely unlikely that this kid will produce any sort of important groundbreaking work that it's implied that he will.
This is precisely the thing I don't understand: how you can watch a piece about a fairly impressive young intellect, so lauded by reputable people in his field, and come away with the conclusion, "well, he probably won't amount to shit, though." That doesn't strike you as incredibly and unnecessarily cynical, as anti-intellectual in its own right?
Worse, though, are how this affects the development and lives of these child prodigies. The expectations of genius breakthroughs will be a millstone around his neck for his whole life.
Dude, you want to talk about an insidious mythological narrative, this "unhappy genius" thing is a doozy.
That boy needs to be smoking behind his parents' backs, drinking his Dad's warm Schlitz and learning how to masturbate whilst thinking of hot girls in his class (and NOT XML).
This brainiac shit doesn't change the fact that he'll never socially develop if he keeps this up... -- from a 2001 thread about Aaron Swartz
13 year olds don't care about adults, much less want them around to "open anything up" for them. Either you are "bad" and you find the kids whose parents don't get off work 'til late so you can go smoke pot and drink and fool around with girls, or you're a nerd and you sit around and play magic with your nerd friends, or maybe you have parents that push you too hard and you aren't done with practice until 6:00 where you have to go to piano lessons then do homework and go to bed early.
Basically this is the time a kid develops a mind of their own. Anybody with a 13 year old knows this all too well. If the kid is an introvert, tell them to knock it off or they will grow up being lonely, unfulfilled, and playing WoW all day. If the kid is a jackass, well.. it is probably good to get all that jackassery out of the way when school is pretty much still daycare and they just shuffle you along from one grade to the next. Anything else you do impedes their independence, and that defeats the whole purpose. -- an ultimately deleted comment about Chance Ruder, reproduced in the linked MetaTalk thread
Why do we think that high-achieving people must be necessarily unable to deal with the pressures of expectations? Why do we think that they must be insulated from crushing failure or intense success? Why do we think that they physically cannot experience extraordinary achievement and ordinary happiness at the same time? Taylor Wilson will fail, probably more often than he succeeds, because he's a human being and that's sort of how we roll. But dwelling on the inevitability of those failures or the infrequency of successes is to construct a hopelessly mediocre model of interaction and to discourage any ambition whatsoever.
This whole "he can't live up to expectations and it'll be so terrible for him" is just another kind of concern trolling. I saw an energetic and articulate young man who is pushing himself to be better and do more and who welcomes the next level of challenge. I don't know how you can watch that video and be worried for his future or his social reputation.
But how we view him and how he views himself should be somewhere in between these extreme Einstein comparisons and "that's no big deal" dismissals.
I do not believe you have any idea how he views himself, and no one, in the piece or in here, is making Einstein comparisons but you. Nobody is saying he did it all or he'll do it all himself. The support he receives is well-documented. I'll ask again, are you sure you're not reading a presumed scientific illiteracy into the piece that isn't actually there?
posted by Errant at 2:02 PM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
But, I mean, he says pretty much exactly that in the video; he says explicitly that it is cool, but not novel, and not particularly challenging. So I'm not sure what mythic narrative you and others believe that you are puncturing.
But I also think that the kind of coverage that Wilson and similar young achievers get is insidious. It's reflects a naive and pernicious way of thinking about achievement and education.
Do you think that the coverage that older achievers get is similarly pernicious? Does it reflect an ultimately debilitating achievement model to profile Feynman or Sagan or Bill Gates? Your argument seems to be that profiling people who have achieved some intellectual height without higher education causes people to devalue higher education. While I can see how that could get spun that way, it's in our narrative nature to be impressed by the unusual, in part because we recognize it as unusual. Mozart's success didn't cause the collapse of conversatories around Europe, and college admissions have increased massively since Bill Gates cofounded Microsoft.
The video doesn't show a prodigy on his own. It takes great pains to demonstrate the aid he's received from foundations, institutions, and mentors. It portrays him as remarkable, yes, but he is remarkable, and he's a pretty interesting and engaging young man as well.
But this idea that "puff pieces about child prodigies...are part of a naive and dangerous worldview"... I mean, compared to what, not noticing, acknowledging, or celebrating prodigies or genius? That strikes me as a far more damaging form of anti-intellectualism. You seem to be arguing that calling attention to extraordinary achievement necessarily undermines the mechanisms of ordinary achievement, and I just don't understand that perspective at all.
What I'm seeing is a response to the extreme in the other direction presented by the media. Some people reading this thread knew only enough that fusion is a Big Deal and a subject of intense and expensive research and therefore concluded that this is a much more significant achievement than it really is.
The subject of the piece, in the piece, says explicitly that it is not a particularly significant achievement! Are you absolutely sure that it is the media perpetuating a shallow view of science, and that you are not perpetuating your own notion of how shallow scientific media is?
It's extremely unlikely that this kid will produce any sort of important groundbreaking work that it's implied that he will.
This is precisely the thing I don't understand: how you can watch a piece about a fairly impressive young intellect, so lauded by reputable people in his field, and come away with the conclusion, "well, he probably won't amount to shit, though." That doesn't strike you as incredibly and unnecessarily cynical, as anti-intellectual in its own right?
Worse, though, are how this affects the development and lives of these child prodigies. The expectations of genius breakthroughs will be a millstone around his neck for his whole life.
Dude, you want to talk about an insidious mythological narrative, this "unhappy genius" thing is a doozy.
That boy needs to be smoking behind his parents' backs, drinking his Dad's warm Schlitz and learning how to masturbate whilst thinking of hot girls in his class (and NOT XML).
This brainiac shit doesn't change the fact that he'll never socially develop if he keeps this up... -- from a 2001 thread about Aaron Swartz
13 year olds don't care about adults, much less want them around to "open anything up" for them. Either you are "bad" and you find the kids whose parents don't get off work 'til late so you can go smoke pot and drink and fool around with girls, or you're a nerd and you sit around and play magic with your nerd friends, or maybe you have parents that push you too hard and you aren't done with practice until 6:00 where you have to go to piano lessons then do homework and go to bed early.
Basically this is the time a kid develops a mind of their own. Anybody with a 13 year old knows this all too well. If the kid is an introvert, tell them to knock it off or they will grow up being lonely, unfulfilled, and playing WoW all day. If the kid is a jackass, well.. it is probably good to get all that jackassery out of the way when school is pretty much still daycare and they just shuffle you along from one grade to the next. Anything else you do impedes their independence, and that defeats the whole purpose. -- an ultimately deleted comment about Chance Ruder, reproduced in the linked MetaTalk thread
Why do we think that high-achieving people must be necessarily unable to deal with the pressures of expectations? Why do we think that they must be insulated from crushing failure or intense success? Why do we think that they physically cannot experience extraordinary achievement and ordinary happiness at the same time? Taylor Wilson will fail, probably more often than he succeeds, because he's a human being and that's sort of how we roll. But dwelling on the inevitability of those failures or the infrequency of successes is to construct a hopelessly mediocre model of interaction and to discourage any ambition whatsoever.
This whole "he can't live up to expectations and it'll be so terrible for him" is just another kind of concern trolling. I saw an energetic and articulate young man who is pushing himself to be better and do more and who welcomes the next level of challenge. I don't know how you can watch that video and be worried for his future or his social reputation.
But how we view him and how he views himself should be somewhere in between these extreme Einstein comparisons and "that's no big deal" dismissals.
I do not believe you have any idea how he views himself, and no one, in the piece or in here, is making Einstein comparisons but you. Nobody is saying he did it all or he'll do it all himself. The support he receives is well-documented. I'll ask again, are you sure you're not reading a presumed scientific illiteracy into the piece that isn't actually there?
posted by Errant at 2:02 PM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
"I'll ask again, are you sure you're not reading a presumed scientific illiteracy into the piece that isn't actually there?"
Yes, I'm sure. Wilson himself explains the significance of his achievement, but the interviewer and the editorial tone of the piece present it as more noteworthy than it is.
What I'm not sure about is whether there's any reason to take you seriously in this discussion when you mention Sagan beside Feynman.
"This is precisely the thing I don't understand: how you can watch a piece about a fairly impressive young intellect, so lauded by reputable people in his field, and come away with the conclusion, 'well, he probably won't amount to shit, though.' That doesn't strike you as incredibly and unnecessarily cynical, as anti-intellectual in its own right?"
No, because I didn't say that "he wouldn't amount to shit". I said that he is very unlikely to make the sort of contribution that this piece assumes that he will. There aren't that many Nobel-prize-winning level breakthroughs in science relative to all the rest of productive scientific work, and those breakthroughs are almost always the felicitous intersection of numerous events. There's a great deal of chance involved.
Scientific enterprise is not some sort of purely meritocratic system built around rewarding individual genius. That's not how science actually works, and it's a damn good thing it doesn't work that way. Science is a collective enterprise of mostly incremental advances with the rare breakthrough now and then.
"Dude, you want to talk about an insidious mythological narrative, this 'unhappy genius' thing is a doozy."
That's a strawman. I didn't invoke that trope.
"Why do we think that high-achieving people must be necessarily unable to deal with the pressures of expectations? Why do we think that they must be insulated from crushing failure or intense success? Why do we think that they physically cannot experience extraordinary achievement and ordinary happiness at the same time?"
I don't know who the "we" in those sentences are because they don't include me or, as far as I can tell, anyone in this thread. This discussion has been about child prodigies and specifically child prodigies within the popular conception of scientific achievement.
If Taylor Wilson expects to be, say, a senior research physicist and tenured professor, then that's a realistic aspiration for him and will be, in fact, "high achieving". If that's his expectation, and the expectation of those around him, then he may well achieve it and he'll feel good about himself.
If he and the people around him expect him to make some major contribution to a branch of science, then that's grandiose and very unlikely and those are unrealistic expectations and, if they're the measure of his self-worth, he'll be unhappy.
Prodigies are almost always surrounded by grandiose expectations that they almost never meet. This is unhealthy and unfair. In general, this sort of achievement at a young age is not predictive of similar adult success because the contexts of childhood prodigious achievement and adult achievement are quite different. But the adults around the prodigies are often not aware of this.
As for your accusations of "anti-intellectualism", I find it remarkable that you equate criticism of the cult of genius with anti-intellectualism. I think that intellectualism encompasses something much more vast than the celebration of extraordinary individual intellects — the product of intellect, some of which is produced by extraordinary individuals and most of which is produced by the merely bright and creative and hard-working, is much more interesting. You seem to be confusing intellectualism with a sort of culture of celebrity.
Not unlike contemporary American media.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:59 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, I'm sure. Wilson himself explains the significance of his achievement, but the interviewer and the editorial tone of the piece present it as more noteworthy than it is.
What I'm not sure about is whether there's any reason to take you seriously in this discussion when you mention Sagan beside Feynman.
"This is precisely the thing I don't understand: how you can watch a piece about a fairly impressive young intellect, so lauded by reputable people in his field, and come away with the conclusion, 'well, he probably won't amount to shit, though.' That doesn't strike you as incredibly and unnecessarily cynical, as anti-intellectual in its own right?"
No, because I didn't say that "he wouldn't amount to shit". I said that he is very unlikely to make the sort of contribution that this piece assumes that he will. There aren't that many Nobel-prize-winning level breakthroughs in science relative to all the rest of productive scientific work, and those breakthroughs are almost always the felicitous intersection of numerous events. There's a great deal of chance involved.
Scientific enterprise is not some sort of purely meritocratic system built around rewarding individual genius. That's not how science actually works, and it's a damn good thing it doesn't work that way. Science is a collective enterprise of mostly incremental advances with the rare breakthrough now and then.
"Dude, you want to talk about an insidious mythological narrative, this 'unhappy genius' thing is a doozy."
That's a strawman. I didn't invoke that trope.
"Why do we think that high-achieving people must be necessarily unable to deal with the pressures of expectations? Why do we think that they must be insulated from crushing failure or intense success? Why do we think that they physically cannot experience extraordinary achievement and ordinary happiness at the same time?"
I don't know who the "we" in those sentences are because they don't include me or, as far as I can tell, anyone in this thread. This discussion has been about child prodigies and specifically child prodigies within the popular conception of scientific achievement.
If Taylor Wilson expects to be, say, a senior research physicist and tenured professor, then that's a realistic aspiration for him and will be, in fact, "high achieving". If that's his expectation, and the expectation of those around him, then he may well achieve it and he'll feel good about himself.
If he and the people around him expect him to make some major contribution to a branch of science, then that's grandiose and very unlikely and those are unrealistic expectations and, if they're the measure of his self-worth, he'll be unhappy.
Prodigies are almost always surrounded by grandiose expectations that they almost never meet. This is unhealthy and unfair. In general, this sort of achievement at a young age is not predictive of similar adult success because the contexts of childhood prodigious achievement and adult achievement are quite different. But the adults around the prodigies are often not aware of this.
As for your accusations of "anti-intellectualism", I find it remarkable that you equate criticism of the cult of genius with anti-intellectualism. I think that intellectualism encompasses something much more vast than the celebration of extraordinary individual intellects — the product of intellect, some of which is produced by extraordinary individuals and most of which is produced by the merely bright and creative and hard-working, is much more interesting. You seem to be confusing intellectualism with a sort of culture of celebrity.
Not unlike contemporary American media.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:59 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Y'know what? I hope Wilson succeeds at everything he's trying to do. Those TED talks that kliuless linked to are really interesting, especially the second one. Fast-neutron reactors are already a thing, but it looks like progress has stalled in that area. If he can bring new life to the field and start manufacturing little sealed power plants that can be buried under everybody's neighborhood or mounted on a rocket to Mars, than more (nuclear) power to him.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:09 PM on August 12, 2013
posted by Kevin Street at 3:09 PM on August 12, 2013
The impression I get from watching Wilson talk is that he's more of a Thomas Edison than an Einstein. That is, he's very focused on practical applications of technology rather than scientific research.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:13 PM on August 12, 2013
posted by Kevin Street at 3:13 PM on August 12, 2013
But, I mean, he says pretty much exactly that in the video; he says explicitly that it is cool, but not novel, and not particularly challenging. So I'm not sure what mythic narrative you and others believe that you are puncturing.
I wasn't puncturing any mythic narrative. Comments before mine implied, to my eye, that the commenters thought he was doing something insanely exotic like building a home tokamak or laser implosion reactor. The only correction or information I wanted to offer is that building a fusion reactor in your garage is, actually, well within the range of believability, sort of like building a light aircraft in your garage.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:18 PM on August 12, 2013
I wasn't puncturing any mythic narrative. Comments before mine implied, to my eye, that the commenters thought he was doing something insanely exotic like building a home tokamak or laser implosion reactor. The only correction or information I wanted to offer is that building a fusion reactor in your garage is, actually, well within the range of believability, sort of like building a light aircraft in your garage.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:18 PM on August 12, 2013
What I'm not sure about is whether there's any reason to take you seriously in this discussion when you mention Sagan beside Feynman.
You may feel perfectly free to take me as seriously or not as you like, but if the conversation is about the popular conception of the scientist and whether celebrity in science is damaging to the ordinary mechanism of scientific achievement, it didn't seem odd to me to place Feynman alongside Sagan as scientists who have a certain popularized cachet. I also mentioned Bill Gates in the same sentence, but I'm guessing that you didn't think I was equating him with either of them, so I'm also guessing that you kind of knew what I was getting at.
No, because I didn't say that "he wouldn't amount to shit". I said that he is very unlikely to make the sort of contribution that this piece assumes that he will.
You then also said, "Most of them are no more productive than their peers. Many of them are less productive. So we have the irony that the reality is that genius in science is not that uncommon yet it's also not that strongly correlated to scientific productivity — certainly not as much as people think that it is."
It is hard not to read that as you saying that the benefits of uncommon talent are few, since "most" geniuses accomplish no more than non-geniuses and "many" accomplish less. I mean, that reads a lot like "geniuses -- who needs 'em?" I don't think you are actually anti-intellectual, but you don't see this argument in other fields. The uncommonly saavy negotiator isn't presumed to be an indifferent asset; the unusually gifted surgeon isn't less likely to save lives; the preternatural violinist doesn't make just about as many albums as a dedicated journeyman. It is also hard not to read that as you saying that genius isn't uncommon, which seems to defy some elemental portion of the definition. It's kind of a strange perspective to me, and I'm not totally convinced that it reflects "the reality" as well as you proclaim.
Scientific enterprise is not some sort of purely meritocratic system built around rewarding individual genius. That's not how science actually works, and it's a damn good thing it doesn't work that way. Science is a collective enterprise of mostly incremental advances with the rare breakthrough now and then.
Thank you for explaining so cogently the view of science that I share with you.
That's a strawman. I didn't invoke that trope.
Again, I'm not sure how else to read "the expectation of genius breakthroughs will be a millstone around his neck for his whole life" except as a prediction for inexorable future unhappiness. It may well be that he is saddled with unrealistic expectations, but I do not know that it therefore follows that he will be weighed down by them. Some people are, certainly, and that's not great, but surely that only proves your overall point that raw talent is simply not enough, right? Successful athletes are successful in part because they learn how to manage expectations and pressure and not let the vicissitudes of success or failure overwhelm them. It seems to me that success in most every other field requires a similar skillset. I'm not sure why the intellectually gifted are presumed to be somehow more vulnerable or less adaptable to those same pressures.
Prodigies are almost always surrounded by grandiose expectations that they almost never meet. This is unhealthy and unfair.
I don't think that's limited to prodigies but to anyone who displays gifts or privileges. Expectation follows talent or resources, that's just kind of how it goes. Is that unhealthy? Well, it can be, but it doesn't automatically follow that it will be, if there's a sufficient grounding, and pressure often spurs achievement; lack of pressure rarely does. Necessity, invention, etc. Is it unfair? Well, it can be, but it doesn't automatically follow that the expectations will be out of line to the level of talent or the emotional stability of the person in question. Achievement is, by definition, meeting or exceeding expected performance. Without expectation, there's just performance void of celebration.
As for your accusations of "anti-intellectualism", I find it remarkable that you equate criticism of the cult of genius with anti-intellectualism.
It seems to me that your criticism of that cult goes too far in the other direction, seeming to dismiss prodigy or genius as a distraction from the real, everyday work of intellectualism. I don't at all disagree that most intellectual advancement is accomplished by the "merely" bright. I do disagree that shining a light on the unusually bright devalues or diminishes those other achievements or that process of accomplishment. I'm not confusing intellectualism with a culture of celebrity; I'm arguing that in a culture of celebrity, which surely you agree already exists, advancing intellectuals as also worthy of applause places intellectualism more centrally in the cultural consciousness, which is good, and does not unilaterally produce some "great man" theory of science., which would be bad.
posted by Errant at 4:16 PM on August 12, 2013
You may feel perfectly free to take me as seriously or not as you like, but if the conversation is about the popular conception of the scientist and whether celebrity in science is damaging to the ordinary mechanism of scientific achievement, it didn't seem odd to me to place Feynman alongside Sagan as scientists who have a certain popularized cachet. I also mentioned Bill Gates in the same sentence, but I'm guessing that you didn't think I was equating him with either of them, so I'm also guessing that you kind of knew what I was getting at.
No, because I didn't say that "he wouldn't amount to shit". I said that he is very unlikely to make the sort of contribution that this piece assumes that he will.
You then also said, "Most of them are no more productive than their peers. Many of them are less productive. So we have the irony that the reality is that genius in science is not that uncommon yet it's also not that strongly correlated to scientific productivity — certainly not as much as people think that it is."
It is hard not to read that as you saying that the benefits of uncommon talent are few, since "most" geniuses accomplish no more than non-geniuses and "many" accomplish less. I mean, that reads a lot like "geniuses -- who needs 'em?" I don't think you are actually anti-intellectual, but you don't see this argument in other fields. The uncommonly saavy negotiator isn't presumed to be an indifferent asset; the unusually gifted surgeon isn't less likely to save lives; the preternatural violinist doesn't make just about as many albums as a dedicated journeyman. It is also hard not to read that as you saying that genius isn't uncommon, which seems to defy some elemental portion of the definition. It's kind of a strange perspective to me, and I'm not totally convinced that it reflects "the reality" as well as you proclaim.
Scientific enterprise is not some sort of purely meritocratic system built around rewarding individual genius. That's not how science actually works, and it's a damn good thing it doesn't work that way. Science is a collective enterprise of mostly incremental advances with the rare breakthrough now and then.
Thank you for explaining so cogently the view of science that I share with you.
That's a strawman. I didn't invoke that trope.
Again, I'm not sure how else to read "the expectation of genius breakthroughs will be a millstone around his neck for his whole life" except as a prediction for inexorable future unhappiness. It may well be that he is saddled with unrealistic expectations, but I do not know that it therefore follows that he will be weighed down by them. Some people are, certainly, and that's not great, but surely that only proves your overall point that raw talent is simply not enough, right? Successful athletes are successful in part because they learn how to manage expectations and pressure and not let the vicissitudes of success or failure overwhelm them. It seems to me that success in most every other field requires a similar skillset. I'm not sure why the intellectually gifted are presumed to be somehow more vulnerable or less adaptable to those same pressures.
Prodigies are almost always surrounded by grandiose expectations that they almost never meet. This is unhealthy and unfair.
I don't think that's limited to prodigies but to anyone who displays gifts or privileges. Expectation follows talent or resources, that's just kind of how it goes. Is that unhealthy? Well, it can be, but it doesn't automatically follow that it will be, if there's a sufficient grounding, and pressure often spurs achievement; lack of pressure rarely does. Necessity, invention, etc. Is it unfair? Well, it can be, but it doesn't automatically follow that the expectations will be out of line to the level of talent or the emotional stability of the person in question. Achievement is, by definition, meeting or exceeding expected performance. Without expectation, there's just performance void of celebration.
As for your accusations of "anti-intellectualism", I find it remarkable that you equate criticism of the cult of genius with anti-intellectualism.
It seems to me that your criticism of that cult goes too far in the other direction, seeming to dismiss prodigy or genius as a distraction from the real, everyday work of intellectualism. I don't at all disagree that most intellectual advancement is accomplished by the "merely" bright. I do disagree that shining a light on the unusually bright devalues or diminishes those other achievements or that process of accomplishment. I'm not confusing intellectualism with a culture of celebrity; I'm arguing that in a culture of celebrity, which surely you agree already exists, advancing intellectuals as also worthy of applause places intellectualism more centrally in the cultural consciousness, which is good, and does not unilaterally produce some "great man" theory of science., which would be bad.
posted by Errant at 4:16 PM on August 12, 2013
"...but if the conversation is about the popular conception of the scientist and whether celebrity in science is damaging to the ordinary mechanism of scientific achievement, it didn't seem odd to me to place Feynman alongside Sagan as scientists who have a certain popularized cachet."
Celebrity is damaging to scientific achievement, as a matter of fact. I wasn't arguing this, but it happens to be true. And it was true of Sagan. I knew a lot of astronomers who simultaneously credited him with much of their early introduction to astronomy while finding him a bit of an embarrassment. His nuclear winter work was shoddy and his astrobiology lab at Cornell was premature. And he was never more than a moderately successful astronomer. He was extremely important and talented as a popularizer of science. But the point is that he isn't comparable to either Feynman or Gates. Both those were singularly successful in their respective fields. Sagan wasn't until his field became "science popularizer". In your mention of him, were you celebrating his genius as a science popularizer or as a scientist?
"It is hard not to read that as you saying that the benefits of uncommon talent are few, since 'most' geniuses accomplish no more than non-geniuses and 'many' accomplish less. I mean, that reads a lot like 'geniuses -- who needs 'em?' I don't think you are actually anti-intellectual, but you don't see this argument in other fields."
But it is true in other fields, insofar as "genius" as an evaluation is in relationship to presumed inherent talent as opposed to exhibited accomplishment. Raw talent, especially intellectual talent, is not as uncommon as people believe. "Genius" as raw talent is not as uncommon as you think it is, given that you're obviously including Wilson and Sagan and Gates.
Also, I'd ask you to reconsider your assumptions and actually empirically verify your claim that people identified as exceptionally gifted in law or medicine or music are, in fact, more productive than their peers who are not identified as exceptionally gifted, presuming "gifted" is an assessment of inherent talent early in their careers or education, as opposed to objective accomplishment. My expectation is that on average they'd be mildly more successful, but that their distribution with regard to success is much more wide, with more in the extremes in both directions.
"I'm not sure why the intellectually gifted are presumed to be somehow more vulnerable or less adaptable to those same pressures."
They're not. This is your preoccupation, not mine, this idea that intellectual prodigies face more challenges than other sorts of childhood prodigies.
"Well, it can be, but it doesn't automatically follow that the expectations will be out of line to the level of talent or the emotional stability of the person in question."
Yes, it does automatically follow as long as you don't assume a perfectly fair and perfectly meritocratic world, which ours is not. That would require both that there's never any systemic barriers against achievement that affect otherwise equally talented individuals differently, nor that there are ever any contingencies or matters of chance that differently affect the achievement of otherwise equally talented individuals. Neither of those things are true; they're very far from true. Typically expectations are proportionate to the presumed inherent talent and don't take into account everything else.
"I'm arguing that in a culture of celebrity, which surely you agree already exists, advancing intellectuals as also worthy of applause places intellectualism more centrally in the cultural consciousness, which is good, and does not unilaterally produce some 'great man' theory of science., which would be bad."
But all that is already true. Because we live in a culture of celebrity the only intellectual achievement we admire are that of those we label "geniuses" and "great" and, even so, we admire the people and not their achievements, which our culture usually doesn't bother to understand. That's a manifestation of anti-intellectualism, this emphasis on the personality and not the product.
We overvalue talent. In relative terms, talent is cheap and accomplishment is expensive. Talent makes up the lesser part of all that's required to achieve. But our failure to recognize this has a twofold effect: first, it creates unrealistic expectations where exceptional talent is identified, this is especially pernicious with children. Second, in the other direction, it assumes exceptional talent is necessary for exceptional achievement — that is to say, the belief that every high-achieving person has achieved on the basis of merit, usually inherent talent. And this is pernicious with regard to social policy.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:00 PM on August 12, 2013
Celebrity is damaging to scientific achievement, as a matter of fact. I wasn't arguing this, but it happens to be true. And it was true of Sagan. I knew a lot of astronomers who simultaneously credited him with much of their early introduction to astronomy while finding him a bit of an embarrassment. His nuclear winter work was shoddy and his astrobiology lab at Cornell was premature. And he was never more than a moderately successful astronomer. He was extremely important and talented as a popularizer of science. But the point is that he isn't comparable to either Feynman or Gates. Both those were singularly successful in their respective fields. Sagan wasn't until his field became "science popularizer". In your mention of him, were you celebrating his genius as a science popularizer or as a scientist?
"It is hard not to read that as you saying that the benefits of uncommon talent are few, since 'most' geniuses accomplish no more than non-geniuses and 'many' accomplish less. I mean, that reads a lot like 'geniuses -- who needs 'em?' I don't think you are actually anti-intellectual, but you don't see this argument in other fields."
But it is true in other fields, insofar as "genius" as an evaluation is in relationship to presumed inherent talent as opposed to exhibited accomplishment. Raw talent, especially intellectual talent, is not as uncommon as people believe. "Genius" as raw talent is not as uncommon as you think it is, given that you're obviously including Wilson and Sagan and Gates.
Also, I'd ask you to reconsider your assumptions and actually empirically verify your claim that people identified as exceptionally gifted in law or medicine or music are, in fact, more productive than their peers who are not identified as exceptionally gifted, presuming "gifted" is an assessment of inherent talent early in their careers or education, as opposed to objective accomplishment. My expectation is that on average they'd be mildly more successful, but that their distribution with regard to success is much more wide, with more in the extremes in both directions.
"I'm not sure why the intellectually gifted are presumed to be somehow more vulnerable or less adaptable to those same pressures."
They're not. This is your preoccupation, not mine, this idea that intellectual prodigies face more challenges than other sorts of childhood prodigies.
"Well, it can be, but it doesn't automatically follow that the expectations will be out of line to the level of talent or the emotional stability of the person in question."
Yes, it does automatically follow as long as you don't assume a perfectly fair and perfectly meritocratic world, which ours is not. That would require both that there's never any systemic barriers against achievement that affect otherwise equally talented individuals differently, nor that there are ever any contingencies or matters of chance that differently affect the achievement of otherwise equally talented individuals. Neither of those things are true; they're very far from true. Typically expectations are proportionate to the presumed inherent talent and don't take into account everything else.
"I'm arguing that in a culture of celebrity, which surely you agree already exists, advancing intellectuals as also worthy of applause places intellectualism more centrally in the cultural consciousness, which is good, and does not unilaterally produce some 'great man' theory of science., which would be bad."
But all that is already true. Because we live in a culture of celebrity the only intellectual achievement we admire are that of those we label "geniuses" and "great" and, even so, we admire the people and not their achievements, which our culture usually doesn't bother to understand. That's a manifestation of anti-intellectualism, this emphasis on the personality and not the product.
We overvalue talent. In relative terms, talent is cheap and accomplishment is expensive. Talent makes up the lesser part of all that's required to achieve. But our failure to recognize this has a twofold effect: first, it creates unrealistic expectations where exceptional talent is identified, this is especially pernicious with children. Second, in the other direction, it assumes exceptional talent is necessary for exceptional achievement — that is to say, the belief that every high-achieving person has achieved on the basis of merit, usually inherent talent. And this is pernicious with regard to social policy.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:00 PM on August 12, 2013
In your mention of him, were you celebrating his genius as a science popularizer or as a scientist?
Neither; with all three, I was discussing the impact of their celebration as public intellectuals on the valuation or devaluation of the regular discovery process and, to a lesser degree, the need for education (presumably, vs. perceived natural aptitude).
"Genius" as raw talent is not as uncommon as you think it is, given that you're obviously including Wilson and Sagan and Gates.
I think part of the problem is that we're having what seem to me to be two conversations which are being conflated in some ways. One is about what effect singling out achieving individuals does to the perception of the methods of discovery, which are distributed and aggregated and not frequently the result of a singular and solo breakthrough; it's in this context that I mentioned Sagan and Gates, neither of whom I would describe as being a genius (although there's probably an argument for Gates). So that's about, as you say, science and the culture of celebrity. The other is in the relative merit or value of genius/talent to accomplishing and being productive.
Also, I'd ask you to reconsider your assumptions and actually empirically verify your claim that people identified as exceptionally gifted in law or medicine or music are, in fact, more productive than their peers who are not identified as exceptionally gifted, presuming "gifted" is an assessment of inherent talent early in their careers or education, as opposed to objective accomplishment.
I'm not entirely sure how I would empirically verify my claims or yours, but I'm open to suggestions. I think you're misreading me as saying that genius trumps hard work. I do agree with you that perspiration generally beats inspiration and that accomplishment is a matter of the application of gifts, not the mere possessing of them. Where I disagree is in what you call the overvaluation or broad proliferation of talent, I suppose. I have not (obviously, anecdotally), found talent to be an evenly- or widely-distributed quality. That doesn't mean I haven't therefore known many high achievers, far from it, but that the talented people I've experienced, assuming they have an adequate work ethic, have a much higher potential and more creative application. I suppose I'd argue that that facility for creative application is my best definition of talent, and in those terms, I wouldn't say that's a widespread skill.
"I'm not sure why the intellectually gifted are presumed to be somehow more vulnerable or less adaptable to those same pressures."
They're not. This is your preoccupation, not mine, this idea that intellectual prodigies face more challenges than other sorts of childhood prodigies.
Well, again, I think you're misreading me. I don't think they face *more* challenges than other sorts; I explicitly said "the same pressures". But we don't talk about high expectations relating to gifts of athleticism or music as being lifelong millstones around their possessor's necks; it seems like you are suggesting that the intellectually gifted are more sensitive to the same pressures.
Typically expectations are proportionate to the presumed inherent talent and don't take into account everything else.
If expectations are proportionate to the presumed inherent talent, then they are also not out of line to the level of talent, which is what I said and it seems like we're saying the same thing there. The ability to execute on that talent is of course frequently and systematically hampered by inequality, but those same inequalities also hamper the perception of talent in the first place, in both positive and negative directions (the talent of men is frequently overestimated, women frequently underestimated, etc). I'm not saying those different mechanics are perfectly in ratio, but they do conjoin. But here again you're addressing end-result productivity and the obstacles to it, where I'm questioning your characterization of the unfairness of the initial expectation.
I mean, you say that he's clearly internalized this unattainable view of his ability and his potential, but have you ever known a 19-year-old who didn't think at least secretly that he was invincible? Where you see someone who's been duped into believing the myth of his own grandeur, I see an adolescent high on his own vitality. I want intelligent, creative 19-year-olds to think they can change the world single-handedly, and to want to do that for the better. Maybe he hasn't gotten broken yet, and then he'll definitely be a different and humbler person when he comes out the other side of that process. But that's going to happen whether we prophesize failure for him or not.
Because we live in a culture of celebrity the only intellectual achievement we admire are that of those we label "geniuses" and "great" and, even so, we admire the people and not their achievements, which our culture usually doesn't bother to understand. That's a manifestation of anti-intellectualism, this emphasis on the personality and not the product.
We overvalue talent. In relative terms, talent is cheap and accomplishment is expensive. Talent makes up the lesser part of all that's required to achieve. But our failure to recognize this has a twofold effect: first, it creates unrealistic expectations where exceptional talent is identified, this is especially pernicious with children. Second, in the other direction, it assumes exceptional talent is necessary for exceptional achievement — that is to say, the belief that every high-achieving person has achieved on the basis of merit, usually inherent talent. And this is pernicious with regard to social policy.
I've been sort of thinking for a while that the reaction here seems like people watching this "puff piece" and seeing in it a dogwhistle libertarian agenda to dismantle the social system and elevate the elect anointed ones.
I mean, every high-achieving person *has* achieved on the basis of merit. Unless we're defining achievement in a way I don't understand yet, that's what achievement is. That doesn't mean that every achiever at a given perceptual level has achieved equally, or that they did it on their own. It doesn't mean that people don't recognize effort or hard work. It doesn't mean people are at home watching this during dinner and thinking, that's right, either you're a genius or a prole; either you're born to glory or you'll never have any. It doesn't mean that people don't understand the gulf between potential and fulfillment and what it takes to bridge it. It doesn't mean that the very notion of talent or merit is suspect. I just think there's this disproportionately cynical and suspicious view of what's going on here. It's like you're watching this video and seeing in it an invitation to abuse children and shut down the universities; you're finding so much "perniciousness" in it, I'm having a hard time understanding if we're even looking at the same thing.
If you have this story on your desk, how would you tell it, if you even would? In what ways, if any, would you de-emphasize those things you see as dangerous and emphasize those qualities you see as virtues?
posted by Errant at 6:17 PM on August 12, 2013
Neither; with all three, I was discussing the impact of their celebration as public intellectuals on the valuation or devaluation of the regular discovery process and, to a lesser degree, the need for education (presumably, vs. perceived natural aptitude).
"Genius" as raw talent is not as uncommon as you think it is, given that you're obviously including Wilson and Sagan and Gates.
I think part of the problem is that we're having what seem to me to be two conversations which are being conflated in some ways. One is about what effect singling out achieving individuals does to the perception of the methods of discovery, which are distributed and aggregated and not frequently the result of a singular and solo breakthrough; it's in this context that I mentioned Sagan and Gates, neither of whom I would describe as being a genius (although there's probably an argument for Gates). So that's about, as you say, science and the culture of celebrity. The other is in the relative merit or value of genius/talent to accomplishing and being productive.
Also, I'd ask you to reconsider your assumptions and actually empirically verify your claim that people identified as exceptionally gifted in law or medicine or music are, in fact, more productive than their peers who are not identified as exceptionally gifted, presuming "gifted" is an assessment of inherent talent early in their careers or education, as opposed to objective accomplishment.
I'm not entirely sure how I would empirically verify my claims or yours, but I'm open to suggestions. I think you're misreading me as saying that genius trumps hard work. I do agree with you that perspiration generally beats inspiration and that accomplishment is a matter of the application of gifts, not the mere possessing of them. Where I disagree is in what you call the overvaluation or broad proliferation of talent, I suppose. I have not (obviously, anecdotally), found talent to be an evenly- or widely-distributed quality. That doesn't mean I haven't therefore known many high achievers, far from it, but that the talented people I've experienced, assuming they have an adequate work ethic, have a much higher potential and more creative application. I suppose I'd argue that that facility for creative application is my best definition of talent, and in those terms, I wouldn't say that's a widespread skill.
"I'm not sure why the intellectually gifted are presumed to be somehow more vulnerable or less adaptable to those same pressures."
They're not. This is your preoccupation, not mine, this idea that intellectual prodigies face more challenges than other sorts of childhood prodigies.
Well, again, I think you're misreading me. I don't think they face *more* challenges than other sorts; I explicitly said "the same pressures". But we don't talk about high expectations relating to gifts of athleticism or music as being lifelong millstones around their possessor's necks; it seems like you are suggesting that the intellectually gifted are more sensitive to the same pressures.
Typically expectations are proportionate to the presumed inherent talent and don't take into account everything else.
If expectations are proportionate to the presumed inherent talent, then they are also not out of line to the level of talent, which is what I said and it seems like we're saying the same thing there. The ability to execute on that talent is of course frequently and systematically hampered by inequality, but those same inequalities also hamper the perception of talent in the first place, in both positive and negative directions (the talent of men is frequently overestimated, women frequently underestimated, etc). I'm not saying those different mechanics are perfectly in ratio, but they do conjoin. But here again you're addressing end-result productivity and the obstacles to it, where I'm questioning your characterization of the unfairness of the initial expectation.
I mean, you say that he's clearly internalized this unattainable view of his ability and his potential, but have you ever known a 19-year-old who didn't think at least secretly that he was invincible? Where you see someone who's been duped into believing the myth of his own grandeur, I see an adolescent high on his own vitality. I want intelligent, creative 19-year-olds to think they can change the world single-handedly, and to want to do that for the better. Maybe he hasn't gotten broken yet, and then he'll definitely be a different and humbler person when he comes out the other side of that process. But that's going to happen whether we prophesize failure for him or not.
Because we live in a culture of celebrity the only intellectual achievement we admire are that of those we label "geniuses" and "great" and, even so, we admire the people and not their achievements, which our culture usually doesn't bother to understand. That's a manifestation of anti-intellectualism, this emphasis on the personality and not the product.
We overvalue talent. In relative terms, talent is cheap and accomplishment is expensive. Talent makes up the lesser part of all that's required to achieve. But our failure to recognize this has a twofold effect: first, it creates unrealistic expectations where exceptional talent is identified, this is especially pernicious with children. Second, in the other direction, it assumes exceptional talent is necessary for exceptional achievement — that is to say, the belief that every high-achieving person has achieved on the basis of merit, usually inherent talent. And this is pernicious with regard to social policy.
I've been sort of thinking for a while that the reaction here seems like people watching this "puff piece" and seeing in it a dogwhistle libertarian agenda to dismantle the social system and elevate the elect anointed ones.
I mean, every high-achieving person *has* achieved on the basis of merit. Unless we're defining achievement in a way I don't understand yet, that's what achievement is. That doesn't mean that every achiever at a given perceptual level has achieved equally, or that they did it on their own. It doesn't mean that people don't recognize effort or hard work. It doesn't mean people are at home watching this during dinner and thinking, that's right, either you're a genius or a prole; either you're born to glory or you'll never have any. It doesn't mean that people don't understand the gulf between potential and fulfillment and what it takes to bridge it. It doesn't mean that the very notion of talent or merit is suspect. I just think there's this disproportionately cynical and suspicious view of what's going on here. It's like you're watching this video and seeing in it an invitation to abuse children and shut down the universities; you're finding so much "perniciousness" in it, I'm having a hard time understanding if we're even looking at the same thing.
If you have this story on your desk, how would you tell it, if you even would? In what ways, if any, would you de-emphasize those things you see as dangerous and emphasize those qualities you see as virtues?
posted by Errant at 6:17 PM on August 12, 2013
If you have this story on your desk, how would you tell it, if you even would? In what ways, if any, would you de-emphasize those things you see as dangerous and emphasize those qualities you see as virtues?
Why do you have this story on your desk in the first place? Here are two bad reasons: (1) Wilson has a publicity manager who manages Wilson's "brand" of boy genius, or (2) you need eye-catching content and one of your journalists has pitched you a "boy genius creates nuclear reactor" idea. Both exemplify the pernicious cult of personality which is in many ways the opposite of how science is done. So, by the time this story reaches the editor's desk, the process has already failed in some way.
posted by Nomyte at 6:50 PM on August 12, 2013
Why do you have this story on your desk in the first place? Here are two bad reasons: (1) Wilson has a publicity manager who manages Wilson's "brand" of boy genius, or (2) you need eye-catching content and one of your journalists has pitched you a "boy genius creates nuclear reactor" idea. Both exemplify the pernicious cult of personality which is in many ways the opposite of how science is done. So, by the time this story reaches the editor's desk, the process has already failed in some way.
posted by Nomyte at 6:50 PM on August 12, 2013
Yes, you're absolutely right. Forthwith, let there never be a ten minute segment about optimistic science on the network news ever again, and let there never be mention of or interview with any single scientist, lest she be inappropriately revered as a god among men. In this way, we will repair the failing process which, foolishly, highlights interesting and smart people as interesting and smart.
The kid wins one of the three top prizes at ISEF 2011 and doing a feature news segment on him is damning evidence of a cult of personality. I don't even understand what we're talking about anymore.
posted by Errant at 8:54 PM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
The kid wins one of the three top prizes at ISEF 2011 and doing a feature news segment on him is damning evidence of a cult of personality. I don't even understand what we're talking about anymore.
posted by Errant at 8:54 PM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
How will we ever stop this flawed science reporting if we don't keep up this flawed science reporting?! It boggles the mind, really.
posted by Nomyte at 12:37 AM on August 13, 2013
posted by Nomyte at 12:37 AM on August 13, 2013
You have yet to explain satisfactorily why reporting on a young person who wins a prestigious youth science prize and who is subsequently invited to the White House to demonstrate the theory behind that prize is flawed journalism, scientific or otherwise. You have yet to explain why my knowing the names of Oppenheimer or Groves but not automatically Chadwick means that I do not comprehend the scope of the Manhattan Project or the necessity of teamwork in intellectual discovery. You have yet to explain how a news segment can simultaneously be a puff piece and a pernicious dissemination of the cancerous cult of personality that will reduce scientific inquiry to arena concerts and coffeeshop recitals, all sound and fury. You have yet to make any real sense, beyond your clear distaste for the recognition of non-anonymous achievements. It does, in fact, boggle the mind, but perhaps not for the reasons you think.
posted by Errant at 2:44 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Errant at 2:44 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
You don't have to be a genius to ask yourself what the hell a "genuis" is. Is it a group of italian genies? A genie should easily be able to conjure a nuclear reactor so this doesn't seem too impressive.
On topic, I think the government will use Taylor to make a "huge impact", as he says, but probably not the way he wanted.
posted by JJ86 at 5:22 AM on August 13, 2013
On topic, I think the government will use Taylor to make a "huge impact", as he says, but probably not the way he wanted.
posted by JJ86 at 5:22 AM on August 13, 2013
« Older Pretty In Pink | Simulating a TI calculator with crazy 11-bit... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Artw at 8:04 PM on August 11, 2013 [5 favorites]