The legendary IM Anthony Saidy just sent me this:
Bright sparks
Feb 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Not everyone’s a genius, but don’t say so in front of the children
BY the time Laszlo Polgar’s first baby was born in 1969 he already had firm views on child-rearing. An eccentric citizen of communist Hungary, he had written a book called “Bring up Genius!” and one of his favourite sayings was “Geniuses are made, not born”.
An expert on the theory of chess, he proceeded to teach little Zsuzsa at home, spending up to ten hours a day on the game. Two more daughters were similarly hot-housed. All three obliged their father by becoming world-class players. The youngest, Judit, is currently ranked 13th in the world, and is by far the best female chess player of all time.
Would the experiment have succeeded with a different trio of children? If any child can be turned into a star, then a lot of time and money are being wasted worldwide on trying to pick winners.
America has long held “talent searches”, using test results and teacher recommendations to select children for advanced school courses, summer schools and other extra tuition. This provision is set to grow.
In his state-of-the-union address in 2006, President George Bush announced the “American Competitiveness Initiative”, which, among much else, would train 70,000 high-school teachers to lead advanced courses for selected pupils in mathematics and science. Just as the superpowers’ space race made Congress put money into science education, the thought of China and India turning out hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists is scaring America into prodding its brightest to do their best.
The philosophy behind this talent search is that ability is innate; that it can be diagnosed with considerable accuracy; and that it is worth cultivating.
In America, bright children are ranked as “moderately”, “highly”, “exceptionally” and “profoundly” gifted. The only chance to influence innate ability is thought to be in the womb or the first couple of years of life. Hence the fad for “teaching aids” such as videos and flashcards for newborns, and “whale sounds” on tape which a pregnant mother can strap to her belly.
In Britain, there is a broadly similar belief in the existence of innate talent, but also an egalitarian sentiment which makes people queasy about the idea of investing resources in grooming intelligence.
…Mr Polgar thought any child could be a prodigy given the right teaching, an early start and enough practice. At one point he planned to prove it by adopting three baby boys from a poor country and trying his methods on them. (His wife vetoed the scheme.) Some say the key to success is simply hard graft. Judit, the youngest of the Polgar sisters, was the most driven, and the most successful…
I do not see this online so if you want to read the full article, you have to get it at the newstand.
I did not give an interview to the Economist. I do not know where some of the quotes came from. I also do not agree with everything in this article. Sofia is very talented in many things. She just chose to focus in different areas instead of just chess and she is happy with her decision. Even though we are sisters, my sisters and I chose to pursue our lives differently. There is no right or wrong as long as we are happy with our lives.
I think I would agree with the following statement. “Geniuses are born and CAN be made.” I don’t beleive every person is born with the same genetic potential. Not everyone can be a genius not matter how hard they try. There is a genetic range of potential that environment will dictate where they fall in that range. An example – you might end up between 5’7″ and 5’11” due to nutrition and vacinations but you don’t have the genetic potential to be 6’4″. Same with cognative abilities. I work with “profoundly” gifted children and their brains are just not wired the same. Maybe Mr. Polgar is defining the word “genius” differently that I am and at the end of the day it’s just semantics.
“…Mr Polgar thought any child could be a prodigy given the right teaching, an early start and enough practice.”
And Mr. Polgar was so right. Today we are reading the blog of a women’s world chess champion who is mediocre at everything else other than chess. Her brain was trained at chess at a very young age, so people consider her a genius even though she is not.
in addition to my comment above this quote is telling – “was regarded as the most talented” Most talented? Obviously a concession to the fact that not everyone is born with the same potential.
I think Mozart, Beethoven and Van Goh were mediocre at everything else. What are you trying to say?
Too bad you are not exceptional at anything? Sour grapes?
Obviously your knowledge of geniuses is mediocre.
“Too bad you are not exceptional at anything? Sour grapes?
Obviously your knowledge of geniuses is mediocre. “
So do you think that Susan can be compared to Isaac Newton, J.S. Bach, or John Von Neumann ?
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth-century mathematician and scientist, though not generally known as an alchemist, practiced the art with a passion. Though he wrote over a million words on the subject, after his death in 1727, the Royal Society deemed that they were “not fit to be printed.”
I rest my case…
“Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth-century mathematician and scientist, though not generally known as an alchemist, practiced the art with a passion. Though he wrote over a million words on the subject, after his death in 1727, the Royal Society deemed that they were “not fit to be printed.”
I rest my case… “
You don’t have a case.
Sir Isaac Newton is the most brilliant mind of all time without any comparison. He founded
– Classical mechanics
– Optics
– Calculus (along with Leibnitz)
All of his physical theories were perfect for the physical observations of his time. Later on, classical mechanics was replaced with Quantum Mechanics, Special and General Relativity. But his theory was flawless and beautiful for all the observations made before his time, and for a long time after his death.
Invention of calculus is one of the most fundamental and important steps for the progress of humanity.
I would simply not compare him to any chess player.
I guess you could make the argument that one could be a genius in more than one capacity. For example anyone who scores in the top 98th percentile on the proper I.Q. test can become a member of MENSA. Generally members of MENSA are considered genius. After all one of the definitions of the word according to Webster’s is having a high I.Q. Having taken this test I can tell you that anyone who can achieve the level of grandmaster in chess could most assuredly score well on such a test. If you can calculate combinations 10-11-12+ moves ahead you can surely do what these test ask. And even if that is not the case another definition given is the aptitude to perform well in a certain area. Susan, I assure you is a chess genius. As to the broad definition of the word I will not assume anything. As to this story however, it allows me an excuse to rant and rave over one of the biggest problems in American society today. Why do we have no great chess players that can seriously contend for a world championship? It certainly isn’t because of a lacking in mental capacity in Americans. Being only 27 years old, I have seen a great change in the way children are raised today. I grew up in a house where my parents were always reading, they do not have cable television to this day. I had the first game system, the Nintendo, and I played it yes, but I spent more time reading and learning about things that interested me. My parents encouraged that. Today parents are too busy or too lazy one, they don’t encourage their kids to do creative things. Here son, here is Xbox, knock yourself out. I remember my parents asking me. Son, would you like to join the school orchestra, yes mom, would you like to play baseball, yes mom, would you like me to teach you chess, yes dad. And I did all those things, some better than others. And that brings me to another point. The parents that let their children do these things push them too hard, to the point that they stop liking going to the youth chess events, and they despise their parents, who are trying to live through their kids. Susan and her sisters were fortunate to have a father who is a gifted teacher of the game of chess. I imagine they ENJOYED learning from him, and their love for the game, coupled with the fact that they had a great teacher made them what they are today. Another thing about most Americans if the need for titles. “I am a genius, I am a doctor,” and so on. I can not speak for anyone but if I were in Susan’s shoes I would be more satisfied with my accomplishments than what people called me. Although Grandmaster does have a nice ring to it, certainly nicer than genius. We have the potential in our youth to have all the scientist and “smart” people we need. But it is not the governments job to raise our kids. In other words: PARENTS: do not expect teachers and schools to inspire your kids to do things besides play mind numbing video games, it is your job, it is your responsibility so get off your…..
Its a good thing he came along when he did because I am sure equally bright people would never have figured it all out.
Could you imagine if there was no Christopher Columbus? There would be all this land over here that no one would know about!
Could you imagine if there was no Thomas Edison? We would be all reading by gas lamps still.
Because someone is the FIRST does not make them the smartest, or the most or more genius… duh!
Zsofia, the middle one, was regarded as the most talented, but she was the only one who did not achieve the status of grand master. “Everything came easiest to her,” said her older sister. “But she was lazy.”
Poor zsofia getting picked on. Maybe a little different in her decisions in life but I dont really think she is lazy. She seems like such a nice person. Not everything is about becoming a grandmaster.
Actually at the highest level of spiritual development a person might be thought of as lazy. I think maybe a positive spin on Sophia is that she is more spiritually developed. Nothing wrong with that.
At the highest level of spiritual development one gets to a state where one does nothing. Actually attaining the state of doing nothing is very tricky. This is because the ego mind is so active.
Better still:
Where would the world be if Napoleon concentrated his genius on chess instead of the military?
The comments here I think illustrate a couple things very well.
One is that intelligence is rare in fact, but common in opinion.
Another is that you can be good at a narrowly defined mental activity like chess or math, and still be entirely unintellectual, and generally idiotic.
My own theory is that is sort of idiocy is learned, by teaching closed-mindedness. While the Polgars were obviously raised with good lessons, I would say most people are raised with negative, harmful lessons. That is why so many who are gifted with a healthy calculating apparatus are so much more closed minded, and therefore intellectually limited, than small chilren. Humans start out with wonder and intelligence. Sometimes this is nurtured in a healthy way, and more often, it is disciplined out of them.
***
I really enjoy seeing Sofi’s artwork posted here.
Sometimes when everything comes easy, it would seem a person could focus on one thing only, and be the best at it. And this is perhaps true. But for a person with this sort of mental gift, it is sometimes more rewarding to try many different things instead. I can’t imagine chess being more important than painting! Or anything else that can bring joy and insight.
“Geniuses are made, not born”
The real life opposes that concept. Most geniuses are not made at all, they just turn up to be geniuses at one point or another. If you browse the biography of some of the well known geniuses, the typical scenario is that wherever they grew up, usually no more attention was paid toward them then the toward the neighbor’s kid. Yet, at one point or another, they separated from the average, displayed a way above average interest toward the given subject and eventually became geniuses.
Chess seems to be no different. Most great chess players show the greatness as young kids. But opposed to the Polgar sisters, nobody taught them in any extraordinary fashion. One day they just “bumped” into chess, learned it real fast, started to cream their parents, neighbors, whoever they encountered. Then somebody noticed the talent and actual learning started to take place AFTER their genius was noticed already. If chess wouldn’t be some genetic talent, this wouldn’t be the typical appearance of chess geniuses. They would start shining much much later than they typicall do.
In my opinion the Polgar sisters are the incredible exception. There is however one more possibility. That more people are born with chess supertalent, they just never realize it.Yes, in those cases it obviosly matters, if somebody starts targetted attention.
Gabor
Perhaps we should not be so liberal with the term genius and restrict it to people to have an understanding / insight into a particular field far beyond any of thier peers.
By that definition the Polgars are not geniuses, great chess players regardless.
In my opinion, we spend too much time judging others. I don’t remember where I heard this, but I think the bottom line it speaks to is very true.
A father once asked his four year old son what he wanted to be when he grew up. The boy said, “A super-market check out clerk.” The father, somewhat taken aback asked, “Just a super-market check out clerk?” The son answered by stating rather matter-of-factly, “No, not JUST a super-market check out clerk. I want to be the BEST super-market check out clerk in the world!”
You could insert any occupation into the story above and it would be just as mind-opening.
If the boy above grew up to be a good super-market clerk, but not the BEST, would he be any less of a person? Not if he was satisfied with himself and enjoyed his life and opened doors for others to enjoy life as well.
Americans love to quantify people and things. Good, better, best. They love to identify with the best, whether it’s the youngest, the most beautiful or the most proficient. In reality none of that matters. What matters is what you think of yourself and that usually grows out of how you treat others.
Children need encouragement, uplifting, guidance, and opportunities. With that, they have the chance to maximize their unique talents. Without that, they often grow resentful, blaming others for their lack of achievement because they mimic what they hear and see around them.
The Polgar sisters were very fortunate to have a father like theirs. He wasn’t perfect, I’m sure, but he gave his daughters the opportunity to enrich their lives as all three saw fit. Each of them is a success in their own way.
I think a big piece to the arguement lies, as mentioned before, what exactly we mean by ‘genius’. Certainly Newton and Einstein are great examples…but there are probably others who never met the opportunities or sheer luck to be where they were.
A series of studies on similar issues often struggle defining what ‘genius’ or ‘success’ is. Interestingly, IQ often falls under a Law of Diminishing Returns of sort with one study (defining success as income when prior family income was controlled) finding that success increases with IQ up to around 125 (which doesn’t meet Mensa’s or many states definitions). It then plateus and actually DECREASES after 135.
One thing that often sets past geniuses apart is the fact that they are very curuious and thus highly motivated about their areas of study. Even while working in a patent office Einstein was still working physics problems and his ideas. IMHO, IQ is very helpful but it takes a lot of curiousity and motivation (which leads to deliberate practice/work) to achieve any status. Of course there are never any guarantees!
I’m learning that Chess is very similar and actually play the game, in part, to learn about the learning process. I do know…ultimately you at least have to believe achievement can be reached with effort and practice (over sheer innate ability) to continue to be motivated to improve.
“I also do not agree with everything in this article. Sofia is very talented in many things. She just chose to focus in different areas instead of just chess and she is happy with her decision. Even though we are sisters, my sisters and I chose to pursue our lives differently. There is no right or wrong as long as we are happy with our lives.”
Then why were you quoted as saying she was lazy? Perhaps you owe her an apology or at least a good meal?
Why don’t you apologize to Susan. You’re a moron who can’t read. Susan didn’t say a word in this article. This was an quote from the father. Post less, read more.
Gabor I have to disagree 100% with your statement about biographies.
I’ve read quite a few lately and everyone single one of them points towards genius being the result of hours upon hour of hard work.
Pete Maravich had a father who coached college basketball who was determined that his son would revolutionize the game of basketball. Pete spent hour after hour practicing incredible passes and and dribbling and shooting and did become the most creative basketball player ever. Julius Erving also spent hour upon hour practicing dunking the basketball which made possible his “spontaneous” creativity in mid-air.
Ferenc Puskas had a father who coached soccer and spent hours every day practicing the sport to become in “Pele’s” words the best soccer player ever.
Amelia Earhardt had parents determined that their daughter would NOT become am unmotivated woman and let her do all the “dangerous” things the boys did and introduced her to all manner of education. She became a record setting airplane pilot.
I could on and on documenting all the prodigies that achieved their brilliance through hard work
Dear Susan,
I agree with Mr Polgar 100%. Geniuses can be made. No one has yet figured out the genetic makeup that would create a potential in a person to be a genius. Even if genes are responsible to the extent of 50% genius, then it is still a great news because other 50% is definitely environmental. This gives everyone a great opportunity.
Even being a genius doesn’t guarantee success. Bobby Fischer comes to mind. There are many other factors that contribute to the success of a person. Character plays a very important role. Mozart, for all his success and achievements, died a pauper at the age of 36. There are so many present day child geniuses but suffered early burnouts. As someone famously said, genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration.
As to whether geniuses can be made, it is my belief that every child is a born genius and we, adults, work very hard to ungeniusize them all their childhood. Needless to say, majority of us are successful. Early intervention (especially during 0-6 years) has a major impact on any ability, including chess. Perhaps skills such as chess can be learnt effectively even later on. But there are some skills, such as music, art, speech and language (I am sure there are others) for which years 0-6 act as sensitive periods during which any exposure results in maximum impact. If adequate environmental support is not provided during that time, then it becomes exponentially harder as the child grows older.
Someone hit the nail right on the head when he/she mentioned about the ill effects of TV/video games. I dislike TV so much that we don’t have TV at home at all. We rent DVDs of various programs, (cartoons, educational) and let our children watch them, instead of all the trash that passes for entertainment. I am sure there are good programs on TV, but as Stephen Covey said, why eat from a garbage bin even if there is gourmet food there. Lesser said about video games the better. We do have a gameboy, but my wife plays it more than my kids and they are not in the least interested right now.
Whether it comes to education or other skills, spending more money in schools is barking up the wrong tree. We need to put that money into good use and in a good place and that’s at home where there are children aged 0-6. That will give the biggest bang for the buck.
Regards,
Ravi Kulkarni
Susan actually speaks 7 languages, not 6.
Michael there are also far more people who have put in the same countless hours of hard work and never achevied anything exceptional.
I think you need to consider both genetic attributes and hard work.
Sticking with your basketball theme, had Michael Jordan been 5 foot tall it is unlikely that he would have become the greatest Basketballer ever, regardless of the hours spent in the practice gym.
Michael C.M. said…
Gabor I have to disagree 100% with your statement about biographies.
Then you list a few famous people, mostly in physical activities (Maravich, Puskas, Erving).
Even there, it is hard to tell which one was before, the chicken or the egg. As in, there are sports which are obscessively practiced, played, every day, by millions and millions of kids. Retrospect you can always point to the role of a lot of practice.
And it does matter of course, once one has the talent. You brought up Puskas. He was a hero in Hungary. And millions of kids, based on his fame, tried the same, yet Hungary never ever had another similarly successful football team, or supertalent like Puskas. If it was up to just a lot of practice, believe me, enough kids practiced a lot in the post-Puskas Hungary.
As millions of kids are dribbling the basketball in USA, yet only a handful will emerge as Maravich or Erving.
When I was a teenager, I fell in love with long distance running. I went to train, and train, and train and I loved it. Except, I never had the talent. After years of trying I quit when the coach brought to the club a 15 years old kid, who never trained, didn’t even know which direction to run on the field (clockwise or counterclockwise). He beat me right there, and several others. He had the talent, I didn’t. Those who are talented, start the practice on a level which may take years for the untalented to reach. By the time they practiced enough, they can reach the levels the untalented never would.
Now, let’s see some people on intellectual areas. Einstein:
“When Einstein was five, his father showed him a small pocket compass, and Einstein realized that something in “empty” space acted upon the needle; he would later describe the experience as one of the most revelatory events of his life.”
Pick hundred 5 years old kids, show them a compass and later count how many would describe that as “the most revelatory events of his life”. Einstein’s parents cared about his intellectual development on the average level of typical jewish parents, no more, no less. He was NOT raised to be the genius of the century.
Bobby Fischer:”In May 1949, the six-year-old Fischer learned how to play chess from instructions found in a chess set that his sister had bought at a candy store below their Brooklyn apartment. He saw his first chess book a month later. For over a year he played chess on his own.”
On his own. More:
” According to school records, he had an incredibly retentive memory.”
Surely, he didn’t achieve that by hard practice. At age 13 he won the US Championship. Surely, there had to be others who studied, learned, practiced more than a 13 years old kid.
Or Boris Spassky:
“He was born in Leningrad, and learned to play chess at the age of five on the train evacuating from Leningrad during World War II. Spassky was the most impressive Soviet chess prodigy since Mikhail Botvinnik. He first drew wide attention in 1947 at age ten, when he defeated Soviet champion Botvinnik in a simultaneous exhibition.”
How much could he studied, practiced between age 5 and 10 in the WWII ridden Soviet Union?
How much MORE could he studied than all other chess players, specifically the champ Botvinnik?
See my point? Going back obviously you can find that the super-successful characters in anything worked hard too.
But if you go back to the very roots of their success, you will find no reasonable explanation why they had such a jumpstart.
Gaborspjkg
Okay Gabor
100% was too high a number.
So I change to 75%
The ‘genius – nature or nuture?’ debate is an old one. Micheal J A Howe, in his book Genius Explained puts it largely down to circumstances and hard work. I personally think that intelligent, persistent work is the key to success in lots of things. If there is any innate, genetic element, it still needs work to be made any use of. So, we should all study chess for several hours a day and fulfill our potential! (Incidentally, Howe puts a figure on the number of hours total a ‘genius’ would have put in to become a high achiever. Any guesses as to the figure?)
Petrosian took to chess relatively late, becoming involved in a chess program at about age 13. His first trainer introduced the boy to the works of Aron Nimzovich, and Petrosian early on adopted a style based on the inviolability of strategic canons. Unlike other great masters, he never had a stormy youth. In 1946 he won the USSR Junior Championship with the self-explanatory score of 14 – 1. But he progressed slowly, finishing 16th and 12th-13th in, respectively, the Soviet championships of 1949 and 1950. Not until 1951 did he enter the top circles by tying with Efim Geller for 2nd-3rd behind Paul Keres in the USSR Championship of that year, ahead of the likes of Botvinnik, David Bronstein and Vasily Smyslov.
Susan,
Is it possible to buy your father book in English or Russian?
Thanks!
There have been some valid points on both sides of this argument. Most of this is just semantics.
To some the word “Genius” inherently implies some innate ability that is more highly developed than most others. To others it is someone who stands head and shoulders above most if not all of their peers.
Regardless if you are “born” with it or have to work to gain a particular skill, in order to become world class you MUST put in a lot of hard work.
In all walks of life we have those who have worked very hard to achieve their position while some of their peers have not had to work so hard to achieve the same level. We also have those who while labeled a “genius” did not achieve much because they failed to put in the necessary work.
I absolutely agree with Susan’s father’s approach. A genius is nothing but a culmination of years of hardwork, dedication, and will. On the side, not only Susan a great chess champion, but also a wonderful human being.