Erik Hoel wrote a series of articles 1, 2, 3 on how aristocrats raised geniuses.
The series makes for an interesting comparison to Scott Alexander's articles such as Book Review: Raise A Genius!. Scott has also offered criticism of Erik's first article. I cite Scott here mostly due to his relevancy to the history of this site.
I don't have kids, but when I do I'd like to homeschool and maximize (with restraint and compassion) for producing genius.
What I found most interesting (in Hoel's third article) was his "key ingredients" for raising an aristocratic genius:
-
(a) the total amount of one-on-one time the child has with intellectually-engaged adults
-
(b) a strong overseer who guides the education at a high level with the clear intent of producing an exceptional mind
-
(c) plenty of free time, i.e., less tutoring hours in the day than traditional school
-
(d) teaching that avoids the standard lecture-based system of memorization and testing and instead encourages discussions, writing, debates, or simply overviewing the fundamentals together
-
(e) in these activities, it is often best to let the student lead (e.g., writing an essay or poetry, or learning a proof)
-
(f) intellectual life needs to be taken abnormally seriously by either the tutors or the family at large
-
(g) there is early specialization of geniuses, often into the very fields for which they would become notable
-
(h) at some point the tutoring transitions toward an apprenticeship model, often quite early, which takes the form of project-based collaboration, such as producing a scientific paper or monograph or book
-
(i) a final stage of becoming pupil to another genius at the height of their powers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The only thing I'd push back against here is early specialization. The edifice of human knowledge is becoming very dense, and you need deep knowledge and experience in a constellation of neighbouring fields if you are to merely catch up with the state of the art in one field, much less make valuable original contributions.
This is exactly the upbringing I've wished I'd had. No one asked for context, but let me grudgepost a little:
Everyone agreed I was gifted, and then did nothing to act on that. I wasted ten years of my early life, in full conscience of the fact, waiting for the autonomy and resources needed to push myself.
I hit thirty this year. There's something special about that number: it cut through any internal narratives I may have had about stuff I want to do later. Well, good morning and happy birthday, we are later, later is today! You are on the downslope now, your cognitive and physical capacities are going to get monotonically worse until the day you expire. You're not going to have any more free time or energy or drive than you do right now. This Is Your Life, this is your cruising speed, get what you want out of it now or forever hold your peace.
I've experienced this as a second childhood.
After a difficult first go-around, the primary enterprise of my adult life has been to surround myself with people who are capable, trustworthy, who will invest in me and who are worthy of investing in. And boy have I lucked out. I enter this phase of my life surrounded by brothers, and quite a few sisters, who elevate me and whom I can help elevate.
And though I am paying it forward already in some measure, I hope to go further, through the same kind of life journey that Hoel describes.
What you call raising a genius, to me seems to be merely honouring a child for who and what he is. Through this, even a phenotypically unexceptional child can be made exceptional by bringing him to recognize his own worth, and understanding the kinds of expectations it is reasonable to have of himself. Part and parcel of this is integration in a rich, multigenerational social, physical and intellectual life.
I like the Orthodox imagery of saints coifed in gold leaf halos. Surround yourself with gold-coifed men and women. Raise each other up, and your children as well.
Cheers.
Specialization is a double edged sword. Since the proponents of Aristocratic Tutoring are pointing to successful cases, ignoring averages, and sweeping any complete basketcase failures under the rug, only the upside shows up. If you took 100 kids and specialized them as kids as anything, soccer players or biologists or politicians, and 100 kids and put them through a general education, it seems likely that the best ten kids from the specialized group would beat out the best 10 from the generalists. That certainly appears to be the case in any easily measured competitive field [sports]. But what about the other 90? What about the ten or twenty kids least suited to the specialization? What happened to them?
On the other hand, within sports, a lot of surgeons blame the rise in overuse injuries in younger and younger age groups on the specialization in a single sport earlier and earlier. And intuitively, you figure some kids who could have been great at a different sport miss out because they specialized in the wrong one. Messi is arguably the greatest athlete of the 21st century, if he tried to play almost literally any other sport you'd never have heard of him, he'd be a mechanic who happens to have a weird ability to do stuff with his feet. Jordan Mailata is literal Polynesian Goliath, but in Rugby he was a $5,000 a week player in the second division, while after the Eagles plucked him using a recently introduced international scouting plan he's a $16,000,000 a year NFL star; twenty years ago that system doesn't exist and he washes out of rugby and is just a huge bouncer at a Sydney nightclub.
So there ought to be specialization, but we ought to think in terms of generalizing skills, and providing off-ramps to kids who need them; and opportunities for kids who are late bloomers to break in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link