The Emotion Machine

their ability to apply what they learn to new situations. This is what psychologists call ‘Transfer of Learning’.[170]

This section has argued that, to gain more from each experience, it would not be wise for us to remember many details of each situation—but only those aspects that were relevant to our goals. Furthermore, what we learn can be yet more profound, if we assign the credit for our success, not only to the final act that led to our failure or success —or even to the strategy that led to it—but to whatever earlier choices we made that selected our winning strategy. Perhaps our unique abilities to make such high-level credit-assignments accounts for many of the ways in which we surpass our animal relatives.

???????????????????

§8-6. Creativity and Genius

The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.

—Linus Pauling

We admire our Einsteins, Shakespeares, and Beethovens—and many people insist that their accomplishments are inspired by “gifts” that no one could ever explain. If so, then machines could never do such things because (at least, in the popular view) no machine could hold any mysteries.

However, when one has the fortune to meet one of those persons that we portray as “great,” one finds no single, unusual trait that seems to account for their excellence. Instead (at least it seems to me) what we find are unusual combinations of otherwise common ingredients.[171]

They are highly proficient in their fields.               (But by itself we just call this expertise.)

They have more than usual self-confidence.          (Hence better withstand the scorn of peers.)

They often persist where others would quit.          (But others may just call this stubbornness.)

They accumulate more ways to think.                   (But then they’ll need better ways to switch.)

They habitually think in novel ways                       (But so do others, albeit less frequently.)

They often reflect on their goals and ideals.          (Or are less reluctant to modify them.)

They have better systems for self-control.             (So they waste less time on irrelevant goals.)

They reject many popular myths and beliefs.        (Especially about what cannot be achieved.)

They tend to keep thinking more of the time.         (They spend less effort at wasting their minds.)

They excel at explaining what they’ve done.          (So their work is less likely to fade from neglect.)

They tend to make better credit-assignments.       (So they learn more from less experience.)

Everyone has some share of each such trait, but few develop so many of them to such unusually great extents.

Citizen: Each of those traits might help to explain how regular people solve everyday problems. But surely there be something unique about such great thinkers as Feynman, Freud, and Asimov.

Here is a statistical argument against the belief that genius comes from singular gifts or characteristics:

Suppose that there were, say, 20 traits that might help to make someone exceptional, and assume that each person has an even chance to excel at each particular one. Then we’d expect only one in each million persons to excel at all of those 20 traits.

But statistics alone never tell us the reasons! For even if that argument were correct, it would shed no light at all upon either the nature of those variations or why just those particular people develop so many of those traits. For example, perhaps to acquire so many such qualities, a person must first develop some unusually good ways to learn. In any case, there is plenty of solid evidence that, to a significant extent, many of our mental traits are genetically inherited. However, I suspect that yet more important are the effects of fortunate mental accidents.

For example, most children discover various ways to arrange their toy blocks into columns and rows—and if observers praise what they’ve done, those children may go on to refine those new skills. Then, some of those children may also go on to play at discovering new ways to think. However, no outside observer can see those mental events, so those children will have to learn by praising successes inside their own minds. This means that when such a child does remarkable things, outsiders may see no clear cause for this—and will tend to describe that child’s new skills with terms like talents, endowments, traits, or gifts.

The psychologist Harold McCurdy suggested another ‘fortunate accident’ that could bring out exceptional traits in a child—namely to have been born with exceptional parents.

Harold G. McCurdy: “The present survey of biographical information on a sample of twenty men of genius suggests that the typical development pattern includes these important aspects: (1) a high degree of attention focused upon the child by parents and other adults, expressed in intensive educational measures and usually, abundant love; (2) isolation from other children, especially outside the family; (3) a rich efflorescence of fantasy [i.e. creativity] as a reaction to the preceding conditions.”[172]

It would also appear that outstanding thinkers must have developed some effective techniques that help them to organize and apply what they learn. If so, then perhaps those skills of ‘mental management’ should get some credit for what we perceive as the products of genius. Perhaps, once we understand such things, we’ll be less concerned with teaching particular skills and more teaching children how to develop those more generally powerful mental techniques.

Citizen: But can we really hope to understand such things? It still seems to me that there is something magical about the ways in which some people imagine completely new ideas and creations.

Many phenomena seem magical until we find out what causes them. In this case, we still know so little about how our everyday thinking works, that it would premature to assume that there is a real difference between “conventional” and “creative” thought. Then why would we cling to the popular myth that our heroes must have inexplicable ‘gifts’? Perhaps we’re attracted to that idea because, if those achievers were