genius

I still need to read Outliers, and now Nudge, not to mention a few other books.

However, is genius nature vs nuture? Perhaps is genius more an expression of potential, rather than raw intelligence? Its hard to argue against an initial value problem here. If you start out with a high IQ, and do the hard work, master your creative abilities, and harness both your IQ and hard work then you too can be a genius.

But is a high IQ necessary? and is hard work sufficient?

I am sure there is work out there that shows that people gifted musically have brains wired differently. Structurally identical. Just the individual connections would be more focused and/or more active during the displays of genius. We already know the brain responds to repetition - learning. So it shouldn't be surprising that genius involves hard work and problem solving in creative ways. Probably even in discrete jumps - rapid learning in short intervals.

The brain also acts via chemicals to suppress certain responses when it is concentrating. Just like people who shoot at targets. A shaking hand goes absolutely still as the brain zones in, focusing only on the one action - the release of the arrow, for example. The same should apply for rapid learning ... the kind of learning where breakthroughs happen. Einstein was self taught in mathematics. His genius was derived from at least some hardwork, experience, even maturity, and clarity of purpose. His clarity of purpose is best illustrated in his lack of ability to have a meaningful relationship with his wife and children ... he was too focused on his work.

So genetics, environment, IQ, and experience all play a role ... and I'll bet each genius has a unique distribution of those 4 qualities. So given that you dont control any of these, you might as well work hard - the benefits are obvious. Failing to be a genius, you just might make yourself (and the people around you) smarter.

Perhaps the one quality all geniuses have ... a good challenge. Something that compelled them to work hard, stay focused and motivated, and acheive.

Challenger

I remember that cold morning in CT. I wanted to watch it, but the family wanted to the hit store (Bradleys, if I recall correctly). We came back to my aunts house, turned on the TV, and there was the explosion being replayed.

I was only 9.5 years old. I dont remember feeling bad about it, though I knew it was obviously tragic. My Dad used to wake me up for those 6am launches every once in a while. So I liked watching the shuttle take off. I knew nothing about it though. But I remember what followed after Challenger.

So I wrote to NASA asking for information. What I got back was an inch thick packet, for free, detailing everything there was to know about the shuttle (in laymens terms, complete with diagrams, and unclassified of course). I wrote reports with that literature. I even wrote after that to get information regarding the SRB O-ring failure, I think.

So, that was my hook to get started in science.

I am not sure if NASA ever truly recovered after that disaster. It took 33 months or so for the next shuttle to launch. An eternity in kid time. But I remembered it was well advertised.
It took a while but I got down tothe Cape to see a shuttle launch. Still cant find that videotape. That would be awesome to show the family. I think I saw it go up in 1992.

ozone

Recent EOS article highlights what a little chemistry, meteorology, and billions of dollars in satellite remote sensing can do. Cant link to the article so I searched for this less than perfect article:

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2006/06/29/scientists_find_antarctic_ozone_hole_to_recover_later_than_expected.html

The ozone hole will recover in 2068, and signals for this recovery may not be visible until 2018.

This problem is similar to what we see with CO2. Add now, deal with it for decades to centuries.
Remember, we turned off most ozone depleting chemicals, but it will still take another 59 years for recovery. Is it any wonder that most scientists agree that global warming is for real? The time scale may be large and the effects seemingly small for now, but add a hundred years and there will be serious climate changes.

visualization

Why are social networks popular on the internet?

maybe it helps in identity formation, decision making control (and informed decisions via data mining), or sense of community.

My opinion is self obsessed* visualization of one's status, identity, and community. How many friends you have, movie preferences, likes and dislikes, photos, groups you join, etc are all public. Its almost like a self perceived ranking amongst not only your peers, but against the local community and communities afar. A virtual popularity contest masked as a communication tool. Lets face it,the communication is one sided and delayed.

(stepping down from soapbox)

But its the visualization that I think is popular. You can see your quantity of "friends" and how you relate to them. How you organize or categorize them. Which circle they might be in with you. Plus you can meet new people and see how that relationship or connection evolves.

Its also safe from personal contact, like IM, but is more than words, thus the focus on visualization.

This epiphany I had stems from realizing that most learners of college age tend to be more visual than not. Thus the popularity of these social networking sites might be evidence that visual learners are becoming more plentiful. I don't know the stats on this to be sure, but I will attempt to find out.

*Not everyone is self obsessed. If you have more than 50 friends, your obsessed. 50 is a not-so-random random number. It is age dependent is a way that I should not attempt to quantify.