This is one of the most interesting posts I have read of late. It is so surprising (and actually not that surprising) that creativity is linked to great success while precociousness is not. Quotes:
"Consider the nation’s most prestigious award for scientifically gifted high school students, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, called the Super Bowl of science by one American president. From its inception in 1942 until 1994, the search recognized more than 2000 precocious teenagers as finalists. But just 1 percent ended up making the National Academy of Sciences, and just eight have won Nobel Prizes. "
"Most prodigies never make that leap. They apply their extraordinary abilities by shining in their jobs without making waves. They become doctors who heal their patients without fighting to fix the broken medical system or lawyers who defend clients on unfair charges but do not try to transform the laws themselves.
So what does it take to raise a creative child? One study compared the families of children who were rated among the most creative 5 percent in their school system with those who were not unusually creative. The parents of ordinary children had an average of six rules, like specific schedules for homework and bedtime. Parents of highly creative children had an average of fewer than one rule."
It's unreal, I identify with this so closely.
I am reminded of Peter Keating And Howard Roark - classic example from Fountainhead. One was the first kind, the Roark the creative kind. How Keating topped the class and flunked life while Roark flunked college and topped life. Imagine the number of rules Keating's mom would have laid. And the number of rules Roark's parents would have laid.
One can imagine the kind of early circumstances in the lives of Chatur and Rancho in 3 Idiots as well.
A friend of mine has a son. She has raised him with very few rules to the best of my knowledge. I wonder what he would turn out like in 20 years time.
This is another very interesting link. Quotes from the link (without permission)
"What explains this sort of spectacular success? What makes someone rise to the top in music, games, sports, business, or science? This question is the subject of one of psychology’s oldest debates."
"Along the same lines, biologist Michael Lombardo and psychologist Robert Deaner examined the biographies of male and female Olympic sprinters such as Jesse Owens, Marion Jones, and Usain Bolt, and found that, in all cases, they were exceptional compared with their competitors from the very start of their sprinting careers—before they had accumulated much more practice than their peers."
"It is therefore crucial to differentiate between the influence of genes on differences in abilities across individuals and the influence of genes on differences across groups. The former has been established beyond any reasonable doubt by decades of research in a number of fields, including psychology, biology, and behavioral genetics. There is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that genes contribute to individual differences in abilities. The latter has never been established, and any claim to the contrary is simply false."
"Wouldn’t it be better to just act as if we are equal, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding? That way, no people will be discouraged from chasing their dreams—competing in the Olympics or performing at Carnegie Hall or winning a Nobel Prize. The answer is no, for two reasons. The first is that failure is costly, both to society and to individuals. Pretending that all people are equal in their abilities will not change the fact that a person with an average IQ is unlikely to become a theoretical physicist, or the fact that a person with a low level of music ability is unlikely to become a concert pianist.
The second reason we should not pretend we are endowed with the same abilities is that doing so perpetuates the myth that is at the root of much inaction in society—the myth that people can help themselves to the same degree if they just try hard enough. You’re not a heart surgeon? That’s your fault for not working hard enough in school! You didn’t make it as a concert pianist? You must not have wanted it that badly. "Wowowowow.
While deliberate practice seems to account for 20% of skills, genes seem be account for 38% as per this article.
Quote from this study "Elementary school teachers were then asked to rate their favorite and least favorite students based on these characteristics, There was a significant difference between the teachers' judgments of their favorite and least favorite students on these measures. Judgments for the favorite student were negatively correlated with creativity; judgments for the least favorite student were positively correlated with creativity."
Quote from here:
Gifted children have three atypical characteristics: they are precocious, they learn differently from typical children (marching to their own drummer), and they are intensively motivated to learn (showing a rage to master). High IQ giftedness is sometimes global (with children showing equivalent abilities in both verbal and mathematical areas) but is also often very uneven. Children gifted in the arts are often labeled talented rather than gifted, but whether children are gifted academically or in the arts, they show the same three characteristics. Signs of giftedness emerge very early, in the first two or three years of life, and signs are domain-specific. Despite attempts to account for giftedness in terms of nurture, no evidence allows us to rule out the necessity of an innate component. Families of gifted children have a set of characteristics (e.g., child-centered, provide enriched environments, have high expectations, grant independence) but we cannot conclude that these characteristics cause giftedness to develop. The more extreme the gift, the more difficulty the child has finding others like him/herself, and thus the more likely the child will have social and emotional difficulties. The link between childhood giftedness and adult genius is weak: while many gifted children become excellent in their respective fields, most do not qualify as adult geniuses. The many possible reasons for this are discussed, including the fact that the skill of being a gifted child involves mastery of a domain, while the skill involved in being a genius involves transformation of a domain.
Quote from here:
"The overriding trait, indeed, the definition-of intellectually gifted students is that they are developmentally advanced in language and thought."
"For example, a 5-year-old blind child visiting Rimm's clinic did long division and word problems with fractions in his head, had perfect pitch, and played Beethoven on the piano. Whereas his verbal skills were above average, they weren't yet precocious, perhaps related to his blindness or only a reflection of uneven abilities. Time would tell. "
As a general trend, gifted students are more sensitive to values and moral issues, and they intuitively understand why certain behavior is "good" and other behavior is "bad." Gifted children and youth are likely to develop, refine, and internalize a system of values and a keen sense of fair play and justice at a relatively early age. Not only is the child likely to be more fair, empathic,and honest, but he or she will evaluate others according to the same standards. It follows that gifted students are less likely to show antisocial or other behavior problems in school.Here I pause and wonder. What has gidted nature got to do with being fair? I am not able to relate the two (astrologically also). Fairness is a Saturnine trait and Saturn has nothing to do with being gifted. I would have said Rahu had to do with being gifted. Hmm.
The resolution of this apparent inconsistency-whether creativity is oris not related to intelligence-lies in the threshold concept: A base level of intelligence usually is essential for creative productivity; above that threshold (about IQ 120) there is virtually no relationship between measured intelligence and creativity.
Creative persons must be independent and confident; must be motivated and energetic; and must dare to make changes, challenge traditions, make waves, bend rules, and get out of the box-and they sometimes fail in the process.
An important implication of distinguishing between intellectual and creative giftedness is that if students are selected for a gifted program upon the basis of scores in th e top 1 % to 5% in intelligence, the majori ty of creative students will be missed. Anoth er implication is that when asked to identify "gifted" students, as we noted earlier in this chapter, many teachers will quickly nominate the well-behaved, conforming, neat, and dutiful "teacher pleasers," rather than less conforming students who are highly creative and more unconventional. Also, in many classes (for example, math or science in the middle school) the special talents of the creatively gifted may not be required. Creative students, therefore, will be less visible and less likely to be nominated as "gifted" than highly intelligent students. Ultimately, the achievements and contributions to society of many highly creative students will surpass those of brighter, conforming grade-getters.
Additional reading:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/imagine/201003/einstein-creative-thinking-music-and-the-intuitive-art-scientific-imagination
No comments:
Post a Comment