Wednesday 12 September 2012

Talent

'I am afraid, Rita, that you will find that there is much less to me than meets the eye.'

Frank to Rita in Educating Rita

'Well, we never really know anyone, do we?'

'M' to Bond in A Quantum of Solace



Willie Rushton's script for Educating Rita is full of penetrating observations on class, relationships, alcoholism, suicide and the utter futility of most intellectual lives. It also contains my favourite bit of dialogue in the entire western canon (make of this assessment what you will).

Frank: Sod them, eh, Rita! Sod them!
Rita: Will they sack you?
Frank: Good God no. That would involve making a decision. Pissed is all right. To get the sack, it would have to be rape on a grand scale. And not just with students, either. That would only amount to a slight misdemeanour. No, for dismissal it would have to be nothing less than buggering the Bursar.

I think - though I'll admit that literary criticism was one of my weaker subjects at 'O' level - that Rushton intended us to agree with Rita that Frank was being too hard on himself. Frank, though, knows better. He is a fraud, whose only talent is to be slightly less talentless than his hopeless students. When Rita makes the mistake of praising his unpublished poetry he replies: 'This clever, pyrotechnical pile of self-conscious allusions is worthless, talentless shit.' And no doubt he is right.

You will not be surprised to hear that I identify with Frank, to the extent that I think I understand him far better than his creator does. Frank was at the front of my mind as I drove earlier today to a meeting with my psychologist. I intended to bully her into agreeing that I am, basically, a total loser. Inevitably, I failed. It seems that my one real talent is an ability to exaggerate my talents. You are going to say that I'm fishing for compliments (or, since you know that pretty much anything could push me over the edge right now, you are just going to think it) but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the truth is almost exactly the opposite - I am fishing for insults.

I seem to have lived my entire life surrounded by people who expected great things from me. In itself, this is presumably not unusual. Many children bear the burden of their parents failed ambitions. What is odd about my own situation is that my failures do not seem to dent the faith of my followers in the inevitability of great success around the corner. This has become really annoying.

It started, I think, when my Dad suggested to my golf coach that I was a 'natural'. The coach, seeing an annuity income stream stretching into the far future, agreed that this was probably true and it took literally years of staggeringly inept golfing performances on my part before Dad accepted that my golf coach just didn't have what it took to unleash my potential. Unfortunately, the old man assumed that, since golf wasn't my thing, I must have other talents, hitherto unsuspected. I was born to please my father and no doubt I shall die trying to appease his memory so, in desperation, I made an immense effort to excel at something. It is no accident that my specialization of choice was biology, a field of study that my prep school considered so insignificant it was taught by a volunteer once a week, after homework. No-one else gave a shit and I saw my opportunity. So began the legend that I am a talented biologist and I have been leveraging it ever since. My biological skills have been so highly leveraged that, if I were to issue junk bonds, I would not merit a 'D' rating.

Occasionally, though not very often, I feel sorry for the mental health professionals whose misfortune it is to have me as a client. Today was such an occasion. I was determined to secure agreement that, in at least one respect, I am a failure. Bad father, I suggested. 'Do you abuse your children?' She asked, as though a negative response would imply impeccable fatherhood credentials. 'Well, no', I replied, 'but I do let them watch a lot of television.' She looked at me pityingly. 'Well, OK, I said, I'm a bad husband.' 'Do you beat your wife?' She didn't have to ask. Well, of course I don't beat my wife, because I didn't grow up in Arkansas, but surely that doesn't make me a good husband? I gave up.

If you spend enough time around people who tell you that you are intelligent, attractive and talented, eventually you start to believe it. This is a terrible mistake. My belief in my own myth reached its apogee when I was an undergraduate. At that time I sincerely believed that I was cleverer than my peers and this attitude rubbed off on my teachers, who came to believe the same thing. As a result, I was made an extraordinary offer. I was given a PhD studentship with no strings attached. My supervisor, an eminent zoologist, told me I could study whatever I pleased and he seemed only mildly put out when I chose to study botany. All of his previous students and, for all I know, all of his subsequent ones, went on to become distinguished academics, except me. Years later I met a guy who had been supervised by the same man. When we'd made the connection, my new acquaintance said 'Oh, yes, I know about you! When I thought I'd never finish my thesis, N consoled me by saying that he'd once had a student who's PhD consisted in proving that as trees get taller they also get wider.' Which is as concise a summary of my contribution to science as could be made.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to fail and I don't enjoy being a loser. It is frigging difficult, however, being both a failure and a loser and at the same time bearing the burden of expectation that goes with being a success. I don't know whether being regarded more realistically would improve my mental health but I am willing to give it a go. Are you?

11 comments:

Ron Tomlinson said...

Szasz quote about addiction which I think is relevant:

'What is relevant is whether "the addiction" -smoking, drinking, shooting heroin- is or is not part of an internally significant dramatic production in which the "patient-victim" is the star. So long as it is (and if it is, the struggle to combat the addiction is only a part of the play), the person will find it difficult or impossible to give up his habit; whereas once he has decided to close down this play and leave the stage, he will find the grip of the habit broken and will "cure" himself of the addiction with surprising ease.'

Indignant responses along the lines of "Oh, so I'm the star of an internally significant dramatic production, am I?" would of course only be proving Szasz's point.

http://blog.automicrofarm.com/post/23858061565/automicrofarm-vision

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/09/12/ancient-flower-lives-only-on-two-spanish-cliffs-and-uses-ants-to-survive/

-- Tom

torquatus said...

Hi Tom,

It's nice to have at least one reader. Thanks for the quote and for the links. I shall have to plan a trip to find the Pyrenees plant, which does not bode well for its chances of avoiding extinction for much longer. Just kidding...

I have to say that I find the Szasz quote puzzling.

There is a lovely passage in one of Richard Feynman's books, which I can't locate at the moment, in which he reflects on the half life of a rare isotope of phosphorus in human brain cells. The implication is that individual atoms spend only a brief period in our brain cells, being constantly replaced by the processes of metabolism. Feynman draws a beautiful word-picture of the atoms mindlessly dancing their dance in and out of brains, while somehow the brains retain their sense of self. Surely we do not need to understand the details of consciousness to conclude that a sense of self depends on a narrative or, if you insist, 'an internally significant dramatic production' in which the self is the star. If there were no production or if the self played only a bit part, I can't presently imagine in what sense the self could be said to exist at all.

As for leaving the stage, I've personally spent a lot of time considering exactly that move. I am sure that Szasz is right to say that closing down the play would break the grip of addiction, but only by killing the addict, an effective solution but probably not the one he had in mind.

I sincerely doubt that anyone in the grip of a genuine addiction has ever 'cured' himself with ease. That would be surprising indeed. There's an interesting article in the current New Scientist about the way in which 'cured' addicts often take up a new addiction. The research relies on a natural experiment arising from the large number of people now having surgery to cure eating addictions. The surgery makes it impossible for these people to over-eat but it turns out that a large proportion of them become addicted to pain killers or alcohol, or nicotine...

I fear that claims of the sort made by Szasz rely on authority, not evidence and this particular claim certainly doesn't chime with my own experience as an addict.

Hope that doesn't sound indignant...

Tom

Ron Tomlinson said...

(It's quite hard to leave comments because the captcha strength is high -- perhaps include your email address somewhere?)

Although, following Deutsch, humans are of fundamental significance in the wider scheme of things, it doesn't follow that *particular human personalities* are significant.

They do exist, but focussing on them is usually a mistake and that includes focussing on one's own personality.

If I spend my whole time thinking "Wouldn't it be great if *I* achieved X" or "How awful that I have thus far failed to achieve Y, unlike Rupert" or "How pathetic that I once did a Z", then I am getting in my own way. The ego (false sense of self) is desperate to remain centre stage, whether as hero or villain it doesn't care. Straining towards the future. Fearing the future. Obsessing about the past. Attracting admiration from others. Attracting insults. All are ways to feel 'safe' although the motive is concealed.

Attacking myself in my thoughts at least implies that there's a *me* at the centre, although there isn't, of course. Dennett would probably chime in here with 'There's no Cartesian Theatre and no audience.'

Addressing this problem is the spiritual thread extant in some religions. Their content may be mumbo jumbo, but by praising an abstract God some measure of inner freedom is restored.

Better still to dispel the false sense of self (by looking at it honestly) and adopt impersonal values, doing things for their own sake, asking things like 'How can this be made better?' and what "What are the relative merits of X,Y,Z' and judging by objective criteria such as truth, beauty, etc.


>I sincerely doubt that anyone in the grip of a genuine addiction has ever 'cured' himself with ease

You may be right but it may be difficult to measure since people who do cure themselves are less visible.

Gosh, that was a sermon on the mount :-) Here's some comic relief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOybSMl1TmA

-- Tom

torquatus said...

All sermonising forgiven for providing that wonderful link, which made me laugh out loud. You have no idea what an achievement that is.

Nah, sorry, Deutsch is just wrong about humans being in any way significant. This is just a hilarious cosmic category error.

Dennett, on the other hand, is surely right that there isn't a homunculus sitting in a Cartesian theatre shaking his shriveled head. I'm reading V.S. Ramachandran's 'The Tell-Tale Brain' at the moment. I recommend it highly. It must require immense doses of religiosity to fend off the feeling that we simply are our brains, in the light of the evidence he presents that selective brain damage wipes out specific cognitive abilities with exquisite precision.

As I'm sure you know, laboratory rats which are permitted to self-mediate with cocaine will die of starvation with a plate of food beside them, rather than leave the source of the next hit. Humans are nothing more than rats with a poor sense of smell and an inflated ego. My addiction, I am sure, has a chemical basis and, while I understand the evidence that minds influence brains, as well as vice-versa, I am simply unpersuaded by the theories of quack psychologists.

My that was a long sentence. Her is some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/user/singlemuslimltd?v=qj4JZ0-tzlQ&feature=pyv&ad=8905715654&kw=muslims

Ron Tomlinson said...

>All sermonising forgiven for providing that wonderful link, which made me laugh out loud.

Super. I first saw that parody at TAM London 2010. We were in stitches...

>Nah, sorry, Deutsch is just wrong about humans being in any way significant. This is just a hilarious cosmic category error.

The classic example used to illustrate our cosmic insignificance is the size of the physical universe. But as Deutsch points out, we don’t feel insignificant when standing next to a cow.

Eventually, if we survive other threats, our civilisation will have to deal with the threat of a nearby star going supernova.

Preventing that happening is merely a matter of technology: of removing some material from the star. ‘An unfeasibly large engineering project,’ you might object. But then, so is digging a canal, by stone age standards.

If you want to take a position on whether a given star will go nova, you have to ask if there are any civilisations nearby, what they are capable to doing, and what they want. Thus, by the standard of size, people are not insignificant: they produce large-scale effects.

>Dennett, on the other hand, is surely right that there isn't a homunculus sitting in a Cartesian theatre shaking his shriveled head. I'm reading V.S. Ramachandran's 'The Tell-Tale Brain' at the moment. I recommend it highly.

Hey, that’s on my shelf too. Looking forward to it. At the moment reading “Mortality” by Christopher Hitchens’.

>It must require immense doses of religiosity to fend off the feeling that we simply are our brains, in the light of the evidence he presents that selective brain damage wipes out specific cognitive abilities with exquisite precision.

We have brains but we are not ourselves brains. We are minds: minds that could in principle be instantiated on other kinds of computers. You don’t conflate your web browser or a word processor with your computer. They are pieces of software with their own autonomous properties.

(Numbers are another example of abstractions that are very real. They don’t exist in the physical universe, only numerals and other symbols do, yet we *use* numbers all the time.)

> As I'm sure you know, laboratory rats which are permitted to self-medicate with cocaine will die of starvation with a plate of food beside them, rather than leave the source of the next hit. Humans are nothing more than rats with a poor sense of smell and an inflated ego.

How does one explain, then, that the majority of American GIs who took heroin were able to quit when they got home from the Vietnam War?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits

Regarding rats it seems that accepted wisdom is changing somewhat:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011592

> Here is some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/user/singlemuslimltd?v=qj4JZ0-tzlQ&feature=pyv&ad=8905715654&kw=muslims

:-)

-- Tom

torquatus said...

I am very much enjoying this exchange and not just because we are rapidly approaching the previous total number of comments generated by my entire blogging life.

"But as Deutsch points out, we don’t feel insignificant when standing next to a cow."

That is because both you and Deutsch have an exaggerated sense of your own importance. If you were to adopt the correct perspective, what you would feel, when standing next to a cow, would be cameraderie. We humans are much, much more closely related to cows than to supernova-snuffing aliens.

"If you want to take a position on whether a given star will go nova, you have to ask if there are any civilisations nearby, what they are capable to doing, and what they want. "

Assuming, for a moment, that you are making a serious point here, presumably you would expect civilisations capable of forestalling supernovas to have spread through their corners of the universe. Is there any evidence that supernovae are patchy?

"Hey, that’s on my shelf too. Looking forward to it. At the moment reading “Mortality” by Christopher Hitchens’."

You'll love it. Ramachandran agrees with Deutsch that Homo sapiens is something new and special but he is wrong (about this) too. I've read a lot of CH's writing but not 'Mortality'. Man, that guy could think.

"We have brains but we are not ourselves brains. We are minds: minds that could in principle be instantiated on other kinds of computers. You don’t conflate your web browser or a word processor with your computer. They are pieces of software with their own autonomous properties."

I'll be interested to hear whether you reiterate this opinion after reading Ramachandran. The case studies are absolutely fascinating illustrations of the identity of minds and brains. The one caveat to this position is that brains probably need to be embodied in order to become minds - the philosopher's brain in a jar could not exist, for reasons that R explains.

"How does one explain, then, that the majority of American GIs who took heroin were able to quit when they got home from the Vietnam War?"

Good question, to which I don't have a good answer. Presumably, availability is a large part of the answer, however. I've hardly ever experimented with drugs other than alcohol, but I once took Ecstasy and enjoyed the experience so much that for years afterwards I longed to repeat it. Unfortunately, however, none of my friends are drug dealers and I just couldn't find a source. Eventually I gave up.

"Regarding rats it seems that accepted wisdom is changing somewhat"

Fabulous - that will teach me to quote received wisdom without checking how its changed while I was out. I particularly liked this:

'By systematically varying the cost and concentration of sweet water, we found that cocaine is low on the value ladder of the large majority of rats, near the lowest concentrations of sweet water.'

I can only conclude that I am a particularly ratty sort of rat, in the undesirable minority.

This will make you laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4297XZdQsM

Tom

Ron Tomlinson said...

OK, I've moved onto Ramachandran's latest offering.

Re: cows. I've nothing against them. In fact I rather enjoy their placid presence. But camaraderie? I'm not so sure.

Suppose I share 80% of my genes with a cow and 40% of my genes with a carrot.

Should I feel half the affection towards the carrot that I do towards the cow? Perhaps I would if I were stranded in some distant part of the galaxy and the carrot was my only reminder of Earth. Otherwise it seems doubtful.

I'm straying off topic. The key ideas I've failed to persuade you of:

(1) That knowledge-creators are central in the scheme of things, despite their smallness, because knowledge has landscape-altering effects, though this need not make us supremacists! Animals have knowledge, too, embodied in their genes, but it is non-explanatory. They don't develop beyond this to universality. They don't come up with new explanations.

(2) That a Universal Turing Machine (UTC) can simulate the behaviour of any physical object, including a human brain (plus body if you like). Note that the fact that selective brain damage causes interesting effects doesn't refute this: all those specific hardware effects can also in principle be simulated.

(3) That the ego exists and makes people miserable. Strictly speaking it's *belief* in the ego that does this: it is believed into existence. The process usually starts when adults call you by name and you begin to learn to speak. In order to grasp it intellectually it helps to understand empiricism and why it's mistaken. (Although experiments are crucial to science, we do not induce theories from them. We do not receive ideas through the senses; they all have to be conjectured from within the mind, which is a sort of Platonic cave with no direct access to reality.)

-- Tom

Ron Tomlinson said...

'That every man should regulate his actions by his own conscience, without any regard to the opinions of the rest of the world, is one of the first precepts of moral prudence; justified not only by the suffrage of reason, which declares that none of the gifts of Heaven are to lie useless, but by the voice likewise of experience, which will soon inform us that, if we make the praise or blame of others the rule of our conduct, we shall be distracted by a boundless variety of irreconcilable judgments, be held in perpetual suspense between contrary impulses, and consult forever without determination.'

(Samuel Johnson, 'The Rambler' No.23, 1750)

How's that for a stonking sentence? Posted here because he repudiates the praising and blaming of personalities. He could without error have included the praising and blaming of *oneself*.

torquatus said...

Yeah, I like cows too. In a strictly non-sexual sense, you understand. I don't feel particularly attached to carrots but I'm sure that, as you note, I'd revise that opinion pretty rapidly, if stranded with a carrot in a galaxy far, far from here.

Its not that you haven't persuaded me, exactly. In one sense, I'm arguing for the same reason that it is said dogs lick their bollocks - they can. On the other hand, I do think you should reconsider your enthusiasm for a Deutschian universe. You and he might be right, that (human) knowledge has changed the game but I can't help noticing that, if it has done so in the sense that D means, ours is the first species in the history of the universe to have changed the game in this way. If someone else had reached enlightenment first, it would have been hard to miss.

On your point 1, I think you need to define 'explanations'. Blue Tit behaviour 'explains' the problem of maximising clutch size in a non-trivial sense. And, of course, we are animals...

On your point 2, I'm sure you're right - as I've said previously, I don't understand the maths. But, so what? Many problems - for example, predicting climate - can be solved, in principle. But they can't be solved in practice.

On your point 3, I can hardly disagree with the opening statement, but I think the rest is conjecture. Show me the money.

I am a lot less confident than you seem to be that I've understood anything. My brain solves problems that were salient in the evolutionary history of my ancestors (or it used to - these days it mostly just begs for the next fix) but I don't see that it has yet glimpsed some final, or even provisional, truth. Are you wish thinking or am I determinedly refusing to acknowledge my membership of a species that has transcended flesh and blood. I think it's an open question.

I'm off to Japan, where I am going to spend a few weeks with my friend Spike, who writes a blog that is worth reading (http://spikejapan.wordpress.com/). Back late October.

Tom

Ron Tomlinson said...

New article by DD:

http://goo.gl/WGDeZ

-- Tom

Ron Tomlinson said...

Ketamine in the treatment of depression:

http://goo.gl/VeplC

-- Tom