Re: The case for and against genius
From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: David Harper: "Re: A New Definition for TIME"
- Previous message: Brian Voth For President: "Re: OMG! 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon Bldg!"
- In reply to: DAH: "re:The case for and against genius"
- Next in thread: Alfred Einstead: "Re: The case for and against genius"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Oct 2004 10:25:22 -0700
dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<4177d4ad_1@Usenet.com>...
> > A?M--"All individuals have the same equipment to think with, the
> > neocortex, the best neural net around."
>
> Yes, I think maybe roadblocks in the neural net due to
> training/environment at an early age are what impedes genius.
Absolutely.
It has been understood for a long time in rather closed circles that
belated structuring of the verbal areas is detrimental to the development
of the full potential of individuals.
Myelinyzation of all verbal areas at the age of about 7 is the main hurdle.
All verbal abilities that have not been acquired to sufficient degree of
mastery before that uncircumventable deadline become more difficult to
acquire afterwards, with related smothering of natural curiosity and
interest for learning.
>From birth to myelinyzation, unrestrained growth of synaptic connections
is verbal areas is easy if proper stimulation is provided. More difficult
after the myelin sheaths are in place. Verbal areas are the only parts
of the human brain that are not myelinyzed at birth, and we are the only
species thus endowed.
> > A?M--"The common trait of all past so-called geniuses was that they
> > learned to read _very_ early in childhood due to favorable familial
> > or social circumstances, and consequently developped early and
> > intense interest in this or that subject that they could read and
> > discuss about, and about which they consequently learned all that
> > they could get hold of that was known at the time. Not satisfied
> > of the incompeteness of knowledge in their favorite subject(s),
> > they pushed forward and ended up covering new ground that became
> > then available to others."
>
> I agree, genius does seem to have its roots in environmental issues in
> childhood. Children are truly adept at pretending. Do you think the
> ability to nurture that into adulthood is linked to genius?
As I mentioned, the absolute key is to let children learn to read as
early as possible in childhood.
Once a child has access to written knowledge, only circumstancial
hindrance from access to that knowledge will prevent his natural
curiosity from dragging him right into the unending upwards mental
spiral.
It has been repeatedly verified that children who learned to read
in early childhood are not caught up with by others who learn to
read at the beginning of elementary school.
The more children are taught to read early, and the more info
is provided to them, the more so-called "geniuses" will pop out
of the population.
It must also be said that "genius" is quite a loaded word. This is
the natural state of any individual whose developpment of natural
potential has not been hindered.
All children have that potential. We all have the same equipment
available, the neo-cortex.
The only requirement is to provide the opportunity for more of
them. All of them would be optimal.
André Michaud
- Next message: David Harper: "Re: A New Definition for TIME"
- Previous message: Brian Voth For President: "Re: OMG! 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon Bldg!"
- In reply to: DAH: "re:The case for and against genius"
- Next in thread: Alfred Einstead: "Re: The case for and against genius"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
