Is being a genius genetic, a talent or an illness

[uperkurk]

So I've been watching the big bang theory and I really like sheldon's character but it made me start thinking, why are some people born with the ability to perform complex mathematical equations in their head which would otherwise take someone else who is good at them much longer and have to use a pen and pad?

I believe that no matter how much the best math teacher in the world sat down and taught me maths I would still learn it at a normal rate and require the same practice as everybody else. I'm terrible at maths, partly because I never practice it but secondly because I really struggle to understand and grasp the concepts of maths... So I ask, are you born a genuis, is it genetic or is it an illness?

You have bad illnesses and I think you have good illnesses. The way your brain processes and remembers information is different if you're a genius so something must have gone wrong somewhere down the line.

I'd love to be really really smart, have an amazing memory but infortunately I know that will never happen. I read somewhere that everything you see and hear is stored in your brains memory but the majority of it is stored in a place in the brain which is out of bounds to us so we can't access it.

If I could access this portion of the brain I could recall word for word what I read in the newspaper this morning. Is it generally considered that a genius can access this portion of their brain?

Note: People who are considered a genius at football, singing, dancing or anything along those lines are not genius' in my opinion. Painting, music, math, science, physics etc are just because no amount of practice will ever allow me to recite PI to 20,000 decimal points or allow me to just "see the answer"

 

[Pythagorean]

You ask whether being a genius is genetic, talent, or illness. But this wording seems to assume they're mutually exclusive.

Behavioral traits like talent can be genetic or environmental or (closer to the reality) a mixture of the two. Illnesses, too, can come from genes or environment (and also a mixture of the two: particular gene sets may be more susceptible to disease or stress in the environment)

So talents and illnesses (such as genius and madness) can arise from a mixture of genetic, social, environmental, and developmental influences.

 

[uperkurk]

You ask whether being a genius is genetic, talent, or illness. But this wording seems to assume they're mutually exclusive.

Behavioral traits like talent can be genetic or environmental or (closer to the reality) a mixture of the two. Illnesses, too, can come from genes or environment (and also a mixture of the two: particular gene sets may be more susceptible to disease or stress in the environment)

So talents and illnesses (such as genius and madness) can arise from a mixture of genetic, social, environmental, and developmental influences.

I haven't really made my question clear, maybe that's because I'm not sure what it is exactly I'm asking but let me put it this way.

Some people are born with bad illnesses and some people born with good illnesses ie being a genius, would that be the correct way to think of it? Basically, what stops your brain from thinking like a genius' does? How are their brains different?

 

[uperkurk]

The thing what drives me to want to be very smart is TV, programs like The Big Bang Theory and Prison Break, I like to pretend I'm the characters in these shows and so I try to act like them, but part of the acting is being on the same intellectual level as they are. I'd love to impress people with maths.

I'd love to know how other peoples brains work who are really good at maths. I spoke to someone who is studying maths at my uni and he just said "I think it's just logic really", he reads the question and just knows what the next step in the equation is, just like when I'm typing right now I'm not really thinking about the next word but rather then next sentence and it just flows.

 

[Pythagorean]

Remember that Big Bang Theory and Prison Break are shows. Any mistakes the characters make are planned. Any mistakes they would have made that take away from their character are removed. The writers have many opportunities to right their words over and over again to make the actors appear how they want them to. They also play off of your stereotypes and prejudices (Big Bang is notorious for playing off of "nerd" stereotypes).

Math is a really accurate language. Instead of saying I want "some" or "that's big" or that's "small", you can quantify things so that now instead of three categories ("big", "meduim", "small") you can have essentially infinite bins (-inf to +inf) in which to divide countables into and you can also define operations on the bins (addition, multiplication, transforms, etc) to demonstrate functional relationships between countables.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Interesting speculations and opinions, but I haven't seen a definition of the word "genius". Are they a distinct class of people or simply people who score over a certain level on IQ tests? As far as I know, there is no scientific definition of a genius. So what can we say about something we can't define?

"There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius (Article with citations.)

 

[uperkurk]

Interesting speculations and opinions, but I haven't seen a definition of the word "genius". Are they a distinct class of people or simply people who score over a certain level on IQ tests? As far as I know, there is no scientific definition of a genius. So what can we say about something we can't define?

"There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius (Article with citations.)

I'd say a genius is someone who excels significantly in a field of study and is able to achieve results which could not otherwise be produced by the majority of experts in the same field. Sure there are thousands of theoretical physicists in the world but none of them are coming out with ground breaking theories or changing humans understand of how something works.

It's strange because you google the top 10 smartest people, or even 100 people and they were all experts in either maths, physics, music, art or philosophy but never someone who was a sportsman or something.

I just wish that I could learn to think the same way a genius does or if not a genius, than a savant.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

The thing what drives me to want to be very smart is TV, programs like The Big Bang Theory and Prison Break, I like to pretend I'm the characters in these shows and so I try to act like them, but part of the acting is being on the same intellectual level as they are. I'd love to impress people with maths.

I'd love to know how other peoples brains work who are really good at maths. I spoke to someone who is studying maths at my uni and he just said "I think it's just logic really", he reads the question and just knows what the next step in the equation is, just like when I'm typing right now I'm not really thinking about the next word but rather then next sentence and it just flows.

I'm not sure it's so much about logic as it is the ability to intuitively see intricate patterns. High-level pattern recognition is one of the traits that sets humans apart (as far as we know) from the lower animal species, but some humans have greater aptitude for it. And it is very much like the situation you describe where you think about the "next sentence"--your mind is creating patterns intuitively.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'd say a genius is someone who excels significantly in a field of study and is able to achieve results which could not otherwise be produced by the majority of experts in the same field.

That's my point. This is supposed to be a science forum. There are PF rules for science forums. It's for discussing facts, published research and reviews in peer reviewed journals or other credible sources. It's not a place to discuss your opinions. If you continue along this line I'll have to report you.

 

[OmCheeto]

Tell us what this video means:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCdS7O248g

Then we can talk.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Tell us what this video means:
Then we can talk.

I think that would be expressing an unsupported personal opinion.

 

[atyy]

Scientific American gathered a bunch of relevant articles over the years here:

http://lcn.salk.edu/press/uncommon_genius.pdf

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Scientific American gathered a bunch of relevant articles over the years here:

http://lcn.salk.edu/press/uncommon_genius.pdf

OK. That's at least a basis for discussion, but it still begs the question of how does one decide if some special skill, talent, or just general intelligence as measured by an IQ test reaches the level of genius. Is it a matter of opinion or can it be measured on some kind of "objective" scale? Is there a psychometric theory of aptitude/creativity that that can be applied to the works of a genius as opposed to a merely talented artist, writer, mathematician, physicist, biologist or other line of work?

I once read a book where the author claimed Robert E Lee was a genius, and Lincoln was an intelligent, articulate and dedicated man, but not a genius. The author was a Southerner, but I could see his point. However, I'd have a difficult time explaining why I might agree with him, especially since I'm a great admirer of Lincoln.

Before we could answer the question posed by the OP, we need to know just what "genius" is. Most people accept Einstein was a genius, but there's good reason to believe he would not have done well on the verbal section of an IQ test when he was in primary school. Years later an admiring Freeman Dyson was to meet with Einstein at Princeton in 1948. However, before the meeting, he obtained a copy of Einstein's new "Unified Field Theory". He called it 'junk', and skipped the meeting.

"One of the few people still there from Einstein’s days was Freeman Dyson. When Smolin asked him what Einstein was really like, Dyson couldn’t help him. Dyson said that he, too, had wanted to meet Einstein, and even had set up an appointment. But prior to the meeting, he had obtained some of Einstein’s recent papers on unified field theory, and upon reading them decided they were junk. Dyson skipped the appointment and avoided Einstein for the next eight years until the great man died."

http://www.analogsf.com/0909/altview_09.shtml

www.giftedchildren.org.nz/apex/pdfs15/Beeston%20D.pdf

 

[FalseVaccum89]

That's my point. This is supposed to be a science forum. There are PF rules for science forums. It's for discussing facts, published research and reviews in peer reviewed journals or other credible sources. It's not a place to discuss your opinions. If you continue along this line I'll have to report you.

Quite. Though, I would say that, from what I've seen, the level of science behind such subjective notions such as what constitutes a 'genius' (at least at the level we currently understand the interface between the physical workings of the brain and the psychology) invites unsubstantiated personal opinion of its own accord. Don't get me wrong--I completely agree with what you said. But in order to be properly objective, one would have to start with more objective terms, specific terms such as 'visual-spatial reasoning', 'verbal reasoning', and the like. Using a loaded (though not generally negative) term like 'genius' is just asking for trouble, assuming of course one uses a consistent logical structure throughout their argument.

 

[dimasalang]

environmental aspects may also have a great impact becoming an exceptional individual in any fields .(math,science,music etc.)

 

[Evo]

Genius. It's a word that's used often, particularly in the sciences, but also in such places as the arts. The world has plenty of smart people who do amazing things. But doctors and researchers disagree on exactly what makes a person a genius. Even within the field of psychometrics, which studies and measures intelligence, experts haven't come to a consensus about what it means to be a genius. Some experts name a particular IQ score, such as 140 or higher, that vaults a person into the rarefied air of genius. Researchers who disagree with the 140-point cutoff argue that people often display intelligence that can't be measured on a standardized IQ test: Can you test the work of a genius writer or painter? Another attempt at defining genius is that geniuses are exceptionally smart people who make a measurable and unique contribution to their field of expertise or the world at large.

What about going directly to the source? Does the human brain itself offer any clues about what makes people geniuses instead of people who are merely smarter than the average bear? Scientists have proven that the size of certain parts of the brain, such as the cerebral cortex and the parietal lobe in particular, is a better indication of higher intelligence than the size of the entire brain. However, studying the brain is laden with challenges and scientists are still trying to discern how intelligence and genius can be quantified and studied. While many theories exist as to what makes a person intelligent, alongside numerous standardized IQ tests and psychometric assessments for evaluation of a person's language memory and other skills, many scientists believe that such things can't really determine if someone is a "genius." Many believe that the essential difference between being really smart and being a genius is having abundant creativity -- the ability to produce something previously unthought-of.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/how-geniuses-work

To think of all of the "genious discoveries" that were accidents. That were no where close to what the person expected. Many other revolutionizing advancements were really just simple common sense improvements to an exisiting device or idea, it wasn't genius, but appeared as genius.

 

[Borek]

To add a (random) thought to already shaky ground:

Hans Bethe of Cornell University, paraphrasing the mathematician Mark Kac, said there are two kinds of geniuses. The ordinary kind does great things but let's other scientists feel that they could do the same if only they worked hard enough. The other kind performs magic. "A magician does things that nobody else can do and that seem completely unexpected," Dr. Bethe said, "and that's Feynman."

From what I read Srinivasa Ramanujan was also the genius of the second kind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I once read a book where the author claimed Robert E Lee was a genius, and Lincoln was an intelligent, articulate and dedicated man, but not a genius. The author was a Southerner, but I could see his point. However, I'd have a difficult time explaining why I might agree with him, especially since I'm a great admirer of Lincoln.

I think this constitutes a Continuum Fallacy. That fallacy manifesting here in that, since you and the author can't agree on what constitutes a genius, the concept of a genius must be taken as meaningless.

The continuum fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard[1], line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, fallacy of the heap, the fallacy of grey, the sorites fallacy) is an informal logical fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

There are clearly reasonable and clearly unreasonable cases in which objects either belong or do not belong to a particular group of objects based on their properties. We are able to take them case by case and designate them as such even in the case of properties which may be vaguely defined. The existence of hard or controversial cases does not preclude our ability to designate members of particular kinds of groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

I think the concept of genius can be discussed perfectly well by the dictionary definition:

gen·ius/ˈjēnyəs/
Noun:
Exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.
A person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect: "musical genius".

Despite Dyson, calling Einstein a genius is clearly reasonable. I think it's also reasonable to speak of different kinds of genius: "X is only a genius in the sense that he has an exceptionally high I.Q. score. He's never achieved anything to speak of. Y, however, has done some astonishingly brilliant work."

Insisting there be a clear, scientifically determined cut off point before we apply a term is to perpetrate a continuum fallacy. There is no scientifically agreed upon point where we can call someone bald, yet baldness would be a perfectly valid subject to discuss in this biology forum.

 

[uperkurk]

Either I'm not expressing my question clearly or you guys are not totally sure what I'm asking, no fault of yours as I'm terrible at getting my point across but let me try this.

This may belong in neurobiology but has there been a case where someone who was extremely smart has passed away and had their brain examined and is it different in anyway?

Like kim Peek for example, I know he was a savant but I'd love to know HOW their brains are designed which makes them different to an average persons. Everyone has different ways of processing and remembering information but clearly some people have an extraordinary ability to remember things and process information and I don't believe it's just "through practice" but the hardwiring of their brains are different. Evolution if you will.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Either I'm not expressing my question clearly or you guys are not totally sure what I'm asking, no fault of yours as I'm terrible at getting my point across but let me try this.

This may belong in neurobiology but has there been a case where someone who was extremely smart has passed away and had their brain examined and is it different in anyway?

Like kim Peek for example, I know he was a savant but I'd love to know HOW their brains are designed which makes them different to an average persons. Everyone has different ways of processing and remembering information but clearly some people have an extraordinary ability to remember things and process information and I don't believe it's just "through practice" but the hardwiring of their brains are different. Evolution if you will.

If we could correlate, say findings on a fMRI with a subgroup of exceptional people to the point where we could say this fMRI is the fMRI of a genius and this fMRI is not, then I would agree that we could define "genius". As far as I know, we are not anywhere close to that. By the way, functional MRIs are a much better way to study brains then waiting for the subjects to die and looking at their chemically preserved brain.

Also, there may not always be much of a difference between a genius and an idiot. Robert E Lee was a very audacious and creative general. He completely confused and outsmarted his opponents because he did not follow the "rules". In one battle he faced a Union army of 60000 men against his own force of 40000. What does he do? He splits his smaller force in two and sends one force on an overnight march around the Union right flank. It's against every rule of military tactics. He won the battle. He's a genius! If he'd lost, he would have rightfully been called an idiot.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Insisting there be a clear, scientifically determined cut off point before we apply a term is to perpetrate a continuum fallacy. There is no scientifically agreed upon point where we can call someone bald, yet baldness would be a perfectly valid subject to discuss in this biology forum.

We can talk about partial baldness or a continuum from a full head of hair to complete baldness. Can we talk about a partial genius? We can talk about, say a musical genius who is otherwise ordinary. But that's a categorical distinction. Can we talk about a partial musical genius?

 

[Pythagorean]

Einsyeins brain was passed around and diced up quite a bit. One finding I remember is that it had high levels of glia (not sure what kind... not at a computer). Astrocytes have been implicated in working memory, among other neural processing tasks.

 

[uperkurk]

So it's pretty accurate to say that you're either born a genius, or you're not. Because nothing I eat, smoke, drink or anything is going to increase the things in our brains that are responsible for memory, data analysis and information processing. Which is a shame because I'd love to be smart :(

 

[SW VandeCarr]

So it's pretty accurate to say that you're either born a genius, or you're not. Because nothing I eat, smoke, drink or anything is going to increase the things in our brains that are responsible for memory, data analysis and information processing. Which is a shame because I'd love to be smart :(

Cognitive abilities are at least partly determined by genetics, but the term "genius" has no precise scientific meaning. You may have a particular talent for something specific that rises to the level that would be described as "genius" by some, possibly influential, people. Even if not, there should be no reason why you can't be successful, maybe even more successful than a lot of "geniuses". Self-discipline and focus are important factors in success whether you're someone's idea of a genius or not.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So it's pretty accurate to say that you're either born a genius, or you're not. Because nothing I eat, smoke, drink or anything is going to increase the things in our brains that are responsible for memory, data analysis and information processing. Which is a shame because I'd love to be smart :(

Genius is a subjective and contextual term. There's little reason to think that it's a real trait, let a lone a biological one. Consider that someone who produces a specific piece of art at the right time and at the right place that just so happens to make a specific impact can be called a genius. A scientist who comes up with a paradigm shifting theory can be called a genius. A crafstman who spends years perfecting their work to produce unique and fantastic artefacts can be called a genius.

All of these things are a product of training, personality (a product mostly of nurture rather than nature), context and "intelligence". But given that general intelligence isn't even a well defined (or observed) phenomenon I'd say this thread is begging the question.

If you want to be more "intelligent" I suggest education. It's not just the boost it will give you through knowledge but also experience of different ways of thinking, different ways of tackling problems and the experience of reading/viewing a wide variety of topics that you find interesting will give you a greater base to work from.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/how-geniuses-work

To think of all of the "genious discoveries" that were accidents. That were no where close to what the person expected. Many other revolutionizing advancements were really just simple common sense improvements to an exisiting device or idea, it wasn't genius, but appeared as genius.

OMG!

Did you know that I once smooshed a gnat on my bathroom mirror one morning, and discovered that gel shaving cream is the worlds ultimate defogging material?

I would have run off and patented the idea, but I thought I'd just share it.

That kind of reminds me of why I never interfere with over-unity crackpots, as it might be one of them that develops the worlds next generation of bearing.

If there weren't so much friction, this would work

 

[OmCheeto]

over-unity crackpots

Not that we, as in you, shouldn't ban them, mind you.

It gives them more time to develop those stinkin' bearings. :tongue2:

 

[uperkurk]

Everybody is entitled to their opinions right? I think anyone who believes in god is narrow minded, but I won't say that god does not exist, because I do not know that.

I believe in extraterrestrial life, but I don't expect to be called a crackpot nor laughed at. Then again I won't say aliens exists because once again I do not know for sure.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We can talk about partial baldness or a continuum from a full head of hair to complete baldness. Can we talk about a partial genius? We can talk about, say a musical genius who is otherwise ordinary. But that's a categorical distinction. Can we talk about a partial musical genius?

The question, I think, should be: can we talk about morons and idiots? Intelligence and creativity must be on a continuum with those on one end and genius on the other. This is how we conceive of it anyway. If it is possible to scientifically study people of exceptionally low intelligence and imagination it must be possible to study people of exceptionally high intelligence and imagination. We can't designate a cut off point between genius and, let's say, sub-genius, but that doesn't mean there is no genius, or baldness, or hot. It would be quite acceptable to ask about the possible physiological causes of extremely low intelligence here. I don't see the problem in asking about the people at the other end of the spectrum.

In any event, it's completely clear to me what the OP is asking about. The vagueness of the term hasn't prevented me from understanding what he's after.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm terrible at maths, partly because I never practice it...

Here's your problem right here.

No one has mentioned Edison's definition of genius yet: "Genius is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration."

I read a book about autistic savants and they described a study done to determine whether normal people could attain the calculating skills of autistic savants. They got a math student and taught him the algorithms for determining what day of the week dates would fall on. Then they got him to drill himself in doing this in his head. (I believe he was required to drill at least 3 hours a day.)

After something like two months of this, he did, indeed, cross a threshold and suddenly became able to do it instantly, without thinking.

If you really want to have some kind of impressive skill like this you have to buckle down and do some serious practicing.

The authors of this book believed that autistic savants got good at this kind of thing because they had nothing else. The world is bewildering to them, so they retreat to the comfort of numerical calculations and do it constantly in their heads all day long. That's the thing to realize: they're doing it all day long, day in, day out. 98% perspiration. Eventually it becomes automatic.

If this model is true, then the illness is what drives them to retreat from the world, but it is the constant practice that makes the calculating automatic.

 

[uperkurk]

Here's your problem right here.

No one has mentioned Edison's definition of genius yet: "Genius is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration."

I read a book about autistic savants and they described a study done to determine whether normal people could attain the calculating skills of autistic savants. They got a math student and taught him the algorithms for determining what day of the week dates would fall on. Then they got him to drill himself in doing this in his head. (I believe he was required to drill at least 3 hours a day.)

After something like two months of this, he did, indeed, cross a threshold and suddenly became able to do it instantly, without thinking.

If you really want to have some kind of impressive skill like this you have to buckle down and do some serious practicing.

The authors of this book believed that autistic savants got good at this kind of thing because they had nothing else. The world is bewildering to them, so they retreat to the comfort of numerical calculations and do it constantly in their heads all day long. That's the thing to realize: they're doing it all day long, day in, day out. 98% perspiration. Eventually it becomes automatic.

If this model is true, then the illness is what drives them to retreat from the world, but it is the constant practice that makes the calculating automatic.

Yes, ofcourse practice would eventually get you to cross certain thresholds but you can't learn every single equation off by heart. I mean one guy I watched was given things like 98 to the power 13 and he just closes his eyes for like 3 seconds, then reads out the number and goes behond the decimal place of even the computer. Also doing outrageous calculations like 7.14256 factoral and other crazy stuff.

Which is impressive but the most impressive thing I ever saw which occurs in some savants, they sit them infront of a TV and for 1 second on the screen a random number of dots will appear, typically anywhere from 100 - 300 and after 1 second the image dissapears and they can instantly say how many dots there were...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, ofcourse practice would eventually get you to cross certain thresholds but you can't learn every single equation off by heart. I mean one guy I watched was given things like 98 to the power 13 and he just closes his eyes for like 3 seconds, then reads out the number and goes behond the decimal place of even the computer. Also doing outrageous calculations like 7.14256 factoral and other crazy stuff.

Which is impressive but the most impressive thing I ever saw which occurs in some savants, they sit them infront of a TV and for 1 second on the screen a random number of dots will appear, typically anywhere from 100 - 300 and after 1 second the image dissapears and they can instantly say how many dots there were...

The point Zooby was trying to make is that these people are good at these things because their autism makes them practice similar things constantly.

Whether or not that is the case some or all of the time though is besides the point given your post earlier about becoming more intelligent. Whilst calculating large sums quickly in your head or remembering every conversation (etc) are cool traits they really aren't the killer app you seem to think they are. If you want to be intelligent and productive then you really can just work at it until you have it. You might never work out sums in your head really fast but so what? The vast majority of mathematicians can't, they don't need to. What they need is a broad knowledge of the subject matter, a good understanding of what to apply and when and the determination and creativity to use this to achieve their goals.

It's a boring answer but I'm afraid there really isn't anything you can eat, drink or smoke. What you need to do is study hard for a long time and immerse yourself with people who do the same.

 

[uperkurk]

The point Zooby was trying to make is that these people are good at these things because their autism makes them practice similar things constantly.

Whether or not that is the case some or all of the time though is besides the point given your post earlier about becoming more intelligent. Whilst calculating large sums quickly in your head or remembering every conversation (etc) are cool traits they really aren't the killer app you seem to think they are. If you want to be intelligent and productive then you really can just work at it until you have it. You might never work out sums in your head really fast but so what? The vast majority of mathematicians can't, they don't need to. What they need is a broad knowledge of the subject matter, a good understanding of what to apply and when and the determination and creativity to use this to achieve their goals.

It's a boring answer but I'm afraid there really isn't anything you can eat, drink or smoke. What you need to do is study hard for a long time and immerse yourself with people who do the same.

That's the best answer so far. The hardest problem I have is reading maths questions, reading the formula etc but my knowledge of maths is literally that of a GCSE student. I have a very very long road ahead of me. I've been recommended this website www.khanacademy.org

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's the best answer so far. The hardest problem I have is reading maths questions, reading the formula etc but my knowledge of maths is literally that of a GCSE student. I have a very very long road ahead of me. I've been recommended this website www.khanacademy.org

Everyone starts at the front of a long road. Even PhD students have to approach new fields like beginners! I've heard good things about the Khan academy, best of luck with it. Personally I'd also advice reading a lot and reading anything you find interesting. Books really do push your horizons.

 

[ImaLooser]

The authors of this book believed that autistic savants got good at this kind of thing because they had nothing else. The world is bewildering to them, so they retreat to the comfort of numerical calculations and do it constantly in their heads all day long. That's the thing to realize: they're doing it all day long, day in, day out. 98% perspiration. Eventually it becomes automatic.

I would believe that. I used to have the habit of finding the prime factors of numbers I saw. I got to be pretty good at it.