Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]
sdfo.orgMy biggest fear. The nightmares I had for years after reading. They returned, years later, when observing Alzheimer's from up close, in family members. No way out, no cure. Memory, reasoning capabilities, character, everything that makes you yourself decline, disappear; you're still breathing, but you're more dead day after day. And then, when you stop being aware of all that... does it make it better? or worse? I don't want to imagine this.
Two follow-ups: "Rainbows End" by V. Vinge. Maybe there'll be a cure. Or "Choosing to Die" by Terry Pratchett. Maybe there's no cure and there won't be. At least, you can decide to go on your own terms, as a person still, not a vegetable yet.
Too many of us are attached to our intelligence. I love this story bc it's a reminder that we should value personal excellence over intelligence. By personal excellence I mean making the most of the intelligence you’re given.
The arc of intelligence in Flowers of Algernon is the same arc we’ll all experience over our lifetime. With old age, we all lose our mental faculties. If we value intelligence, in and of itself, that loss will be very painful. But, if we value making the most of our intelligence, we are resilient.
Applying this framework to Charlie, there’s much less to be sad about. He made the most of the intelligence he was gifted, and that’s what really matters.
> Too many of us are attached to our intelligence
I think Alzheimer's is scary because it's not just about intelligence. If it was just that you become dumb(er), I wouldn't mind it that much. I must be an exception, but beyond a certain threshold (I wouldn't want to be drooling idiot) I'm not that attached to my intelligence. I'm painfully aware that I'm average and that I had the luck of having an education and a stable home that other, more intelligent but less fortunate people than me, didn't.
I think Alzheimer's is scary because your whole personality goes. Cognitive functions. Memory. You stop being independent. You cannot do the simplest things by yourself. Things become scary and you're not sure why. You are alone, surrounded by strangers.
If there was a progressive illness where you got less intelligent, but still able to function and tell who your loved ones are, remember things, and at least understand where you are and your new place in the world, to me it wouldn't be half as scary as Alzheimer's.
I can corroborate your insight from personal experience. I had a stroke a few years back and, while I was recovering, my intelligence was drastically reduced. I always derived a great deal of my identity and self-worth from being "smart", and would have predicted that operating at maybe 25% capacity would be devastating. In fact, it wasn't. I was aware (certainly!) that I was operating at a deficit, but I still felt like myself. I was able to love and feel loved, experience joy, and humour, and enjoy good food, and watch movies and sports on TV. About all I couldn't do was read (well, I could read, but I couldn't follow complex prose), which sucked, but nearly all of what made me me, and made life worth living, was unaffected. Intelligence is overrated.
Your description of dementia, however, is only true from the outside. Prior to that stage, I passed through a period of about a week where I was completely absent. I was able to behave coherently for short periods of time, but I wasn't creating any memories. It's a blank. (I have text threads saved with friends where I tell them what's happened and where I was, carry on for a bit, and then loop back to the beginning.) If identity is a pattern both stable and self-modifying over time - which, based on this experience, I believe it to be - then I had ceased exist.
I've made an agreement with my wife that, should I become demented in old age, she should feel no moral compulsion towards any course of action. She's welcome to keep whatever is left of me around so long as it gives her joy, but "I" will no longer be present, and whatever happens to whatever is left no longer matters. As far as I'm concerned she should warehouse, or (better, though unfortunately not legal where we live) euthanase my body, and get on with doing something useful with her time.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I hope you fully recovered.
Thanks for the kind wishes. I have some residual neuropathy in my right hand, and I have to take anti-seizure medication every day or my brain tries to kill me. Either the medication or the brain injury has reduced my brain-power and ability to articulate my thoughts by about 10%. There are some things that were easy before that aren't possible now, but all in all I've had an amazing result. The experience has entirely removed my fear of death, so it may even have have been a net positive. I can't complain!
As another reply has stated, losing some intelligence is not so terrifying.
Alzheimer's is. I've seen it up close over its course twice. It's as bad as people imagine. You never forget the sound of someone drowning in their own saliva.
So sad and terrifying.
I came across this song recently about losing someone to Alzheimer's.
Well said. The more I read and attempt to understand LLM and AI the more interesting the parallels to the human mind. Our conscience mind is similar to a model and weights are applied in the training of our model in a variety of ways. Parents, school, environment, illness, books, video games , relationships, religion, etc all work to help fine tune our model and in essence develop our presented conscience self (well maybe … ). Breaking down of the neurons leads to the model itself breaking down and the conscience person we know is lost.
Perhaps there is more than us than just our conscience personality and the essence that vibes with the larger pattern of life and reality itself is more than our little personalized highly tuned version of “me”.
Interesting times to be alive for sure.
> With old age, we all lose our mental faculties.
What? No. That is not at all true. Nearly all of my relatives - other than the one who had alzheimers - were as sharp as ever up until they died.
> With old age, we all lose our mental faculties.
Citation needed
AFAIK it's not remotely true that "we all lose our mental faculties". Plenty of people do not
I thought it was well understood that your mental/physical potential peak when you are young and degrade thereafter? E.G. comparing 26 year old self to 86 year old self.
But a saving grace is the degradation can be combated with exercise both mental/physical.
I am not sure how much of aging is understood, so I hesitate to mention stuff like DNA damage.
I think that's a total misconception. I think the myth that "the brain stops developing at 25" was an apocryphal conclusion from a study where they simply stopped measuring past 25 and that either the same study or other studies found many brain faculties don't plateau, ever, even in advanced age. I also heard that it's highly variable from person to person how the brain develops, like some 8-year-olds had faster development in some regions than some 30-year-olds.
One thing's for sure though: we're still in the stone age of neurology.
Years ago we were taught that the brain could not grow. You had what you were born with and after your twenties it degraded.
Now of course we are aware that the brain has plasticity. It can rewire itself, grow, learn.
so primitive. but we're finding things out, from ultrasound surgery to cut out the addiction center of the brain, to influencing motivation/treating depression with magnetic/electrical fields with TMS and tdcs, we're ever so slightly making sharpened stones and crude axes of the stone age we're in
There's a difference between slowing down and losing cognitive abilities. It's one thing to not be able to solve very complex problems anymore and another to not remember how to use a toothbrush. I don't think anyone's really disputing that we're on average more capable in 20s-40s.
In medical school we were taught that basically everyone gets alzheimers, or would get it if aged up to a certain age (200, 300, etc). You could make the same argument for cancer - actually in that vein prostate cancer is a big one people die with but not of. When you study the body enough you realize that every system at every micro/macro level is failing slowly with age, but we can only pick on one of them as the cause of death.
Re: citation needed : failed literature search link needed as pre-requisite
I'm of the belief that in such a situation, a pre-cognitive decline "living will" or dead man switch is appropriate.
If I were diagnosed with dementia, I'd build automation to ensure that I'd appear to die a natural death when I enter the steep slope of cognitive decline. It's as easy as tying the results of frequent cognitive tests into a moving average that triggers my medication dispenser to start mixing in a toxin and or substituting key medication that keeps me alive with a sugar pill. These days, without the right medication, I'd be dead from "natural causes" in a week.
> It's as easy as tying the results of frequent cognitive tests into a moving average that triggers my medication dispenser to start mixing in a toxin
You appear to me to be the type who never writes any bugs in their code.
Or, someone who would thoroughly test such a system and formally verify it long before use, as it would literally be a life or death thing...
Oh right we'll just "formally verify it," all good then!
What's closer to "bug-free" (here, inside the cave) than formally verified software running on verified hardware in a distributed[1] system?
[1] Because "you can't type-check being hit by lightning"...
It works on my brain
Having ADHD I've often wondered how I could even do a deadman switch. I'd eventually forget to renew it when I was otherwise perfectly fine.
There was something I was supposed to do today.. huh. Must not have been important.
<< KILLBOT ACTIVATING >>
oh no
Gosh, this made me laugh out loud. Thanks XD
It really has to be part of the routine, and there needs to be automated nagging in place to ensure that it goes off due to programmed conditions, and not due to neglect.
I think this is especially important in cases of dementia. Daily routines will become one of the last things to go, as long as there is good nagware in place to keep you in line.
I use nagware to remind me to take my medication, do my Duolingo practice, do my nightly checkins to GitHub, feed the various critters that don't or won't remind me themselves, and do my various work rituals. Weekly, monthly, and annual reminders (doctor appointments and birthdays) are also important.
That's fine in theory, but the problem is that many, possibly most, Alzheimer's patients report that they are happy and don't want to die, even well into severe cases. Whose preference should get priority, past you or present you? Maybe the internal experience of severe Alzheimer's isn't as bad as you are imagining, but if your living will is ironclad, by the time you realize that you'd have no way to signal it, and so you just get murdered.
The consciousness living in my body at that point may very well be happy, but that consciousness would not be me. I'd be gone, except perhaps in rare instances of lucidity.
Sure, there is a Ship of Theseus argument to be had here, but I am very much opposed to being a burden on my loved ones, and if nothing were to change with my mind, that opposition would remain. I've seen first-hand the suffering that Alzheimer's inflicts on loved ones, and that's not something I would EVER consent to while in my right mind. The very idea horrifies me.
That the alien consciousness that would be inhabiting my body at that point doesn't want to die, and holds a few of my memories, is of little consequence to me. Even if this experience is pleasant, at that point, it's not my experience -- what little of "me" is left to experience it -- that I care about.
If the old you is already dead - why should it get to decide whether or not to kill the new one, which wants to go on living.
It's not about me, it's about the trauma that my husk causes to loved ones.
I'm a firm believer in euthanasia. I should get the choice while I am able to make that choice. If future me had the capacity to choose, future me would choose the same.
I’ve observed Alzheimer’s take away memories, dignity, and personality from multiple loved ones.
I’m unsure whether it’s worse for the affected individual or the loved ones around them. That uncertainty leads me to the same conclusion as you.
COVID brain fog gave me some perspective around the recognition that one’s brain is inexplicably not working as expected. Existing in that state of frustration for years is nightmarish.
I have an assisted-suicide packt with my wife, that is probably the easiest solution.
For sure, if you can trust your partner to assist you with this, and if you can guarantee that your partner will not face legal consequences, this would be a great option.
Dementia poses a legal wrinkle, in that in many jurisdictions, assisted suicide requires consent at the time of the procedure. In many states in the US, especially in the south, assisted suicide is a boogeyman that runs against prevalent religious beliefs. In this case, someone with diminished capacity may be seen as unable to give consent, which could land the assistant in legal trouble.
This is why I like the idea of automation that acts on objective measures, with fail safes in place. Likewise, if after "doing the deed", the system erases itself and the firmware on the pill dispenser is glitched out, then the whole thing can look like an accident. A letter can be sent ahead of time to the family attorney, only to be opened under suspicion of foul play, which can clear up any potential investigatory wrinkles if law enforcement gets involved.
I'm fairly certain in the US you cannot legally consent to being killed.
Wikipedia has a map - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide_in_the_United...
It depends on the jurisdiction. A half dozen states now permit assisted suicide in the case of terminal illness.
There's also an interesting bit of case law and state statutes that deals with "drug cocktails", which when combined, will lead to death. A physician can prescribe these in certain places without getting in trouble if certain criteria have been met.
Either way, where this is legal, it requires that the person be of the capacity to consent, which someone with dementia cannot do.
Not true. I helped my mother fulfill her wishes, and faced no prosecution. My lawyer helped.
How would you do it if you didn't take any medication? The most medication I've ever needed to take is an aspirin once or twice a year. I'm trying to think what other method I could use in place of substituting mediation.
Well, I would strongly advocate that such a system be used only after a diagnosis, at which point, you would be placed on medications to slow the progression. At that point, this would be seen as a rather innocuous thing by family members, since it's a machine meant to help you to remember to take medication that you need to help with your dementia.
I have considered other machines -- again, as a theoretical exercise -- but ultimately, my decision process was that it had to maintain the plausible deniability to family members that I just died of natural causes. Allowing family to believe that I opted out because I felt that I was a burden would certainly lead to trauma beyond death from natural causes or an accident.
I'm a strong believer in having the power of euthanasia. Part of the reason why dementia frightens me is because it would strip me of this agency. I currently suffer from heart failure, and dementia is a comorbidity in the later stages. Being able to choose a dignified end, hopefully in 30-40 years, is important to me.
I've been thinking about the question: "where will all the people go?" and instead of you having to do all that. Why don't we just pair the serial killers with the people who want to die? The right-to-die folks get what they want, and the "serial killer"-types get to pull the proverbial trigger, and we get to interview them after.
I always thought it would be neat if there were some dangerous or lethal jobs that people like this could sign up for and go out in a blaze of glory. I know I'd sign up! Like Spock fixing that warp core :-)
cf. the many elderly who volunteered to clean up at Fukushima
Fascinating. Here's one article about them: https://www.npr.org/2011/09/12/140402430/japanese-seniors-se...
I don't think they expected to die from it, though. More so that they knew they would die of old age before they could develop cancer from it.
Maybe Spock was just playing the long game. Knew he would be resurrected by space magic and get to pon farr with the rescue party.
Would you prefer to suffer through something like cancer, fully aware of your decline and unable to do anything but with the will to do so? Or just be completely unaware of what is going on but not necessarily in poor health? Dementia is certainly terrible in a unique and disturbing way for the afflicted and people that care about them, but Im not so sure some of the more understandable alternatives would be preferable.
If you're asking what's worse, body dying with a a good mind, or mind dying eg in dementia but good body, the answer is almost 100% the latter being worse.
I know someone who had Alzheimer's. Was in excellent physical shape, had biomarkers of someone 20 years younger. Would go for daily walks for decades, consistently did yoga etc.
The issue, with late stage Alzheimer's (and possibly dementia in general), is that the brain starts to forget so many things it's not even funny (it never was). You forget to swallow water. You forget to chew food. You forget what the bathroom is for. It's far from "living with dignity", even if the body is still physically capable. I think lock-in syndrome is the only other medical situation I'd consider similarly traumatizing.
> It's far from "living with dignity", even if the body is still physically capable.
It would be abhorrent if you understood what was going on, but if you did you wouldn't be in that state. I'm not sure whether in general terms Dementia is as traumatic for the sufferer as the observer who attaches value to a historical person (who for all intents and purposes is gone)
There's often a long overlap, though. Both my grandmothers died with Alzheimers. We'lll never know how long they knew, but in retrospect it's clear they knew of the decline for quite some time.
My mothers mother avoided hospital until it became too apparent to everyone around here that my grandfather tricker her. She'd make jokes about her failing memory for years, and while some of it might have been genuine, in retrospect odds are she noticed it was getting bad and was obscuring it with humour.
For years afterwards, she would forget conversations partway through them, but clearly be aware that something was wrong. E.g. for some time she recognised me, but would wonder when I got there and how long I'd been there, and occasionally my name and who I was would slip, but she was otherwise lucid enough to understand that this was not normal.
My dads mother managed to hide the decline until one day my grandfather was going in to hospital for a minor operation, and she refused to get out of bed. The last time I saw her before that, she seemed lucid and held a conversation. I never had another conversation with her, though she lived another decade - she went non-verbal almost overnight, but it was clear this wasn't some sudden physical change; she'd held it together until then, and gave up. It might be her cognitive decline was faster, and less cruel, but we really don't know if it was, or if she just managed to conceal it until the very brink.
How much after that she managed to hold on to enough to recognise any of us - including her husband we don't know, because shortly after she went non-verbal she mostly stopped moving.
But one of the cruelest parts of Alzheimers is what it does for those left behind - my grandfather spent a whole decade in his 70's and 80's walking to the nursing home, sitting with her all day, every day, then walking home, after she was for all intents and purposes gone.
People with severe alzheimers have a major problem with short-term memory. So if they are in an environment where everything is the same as it has been for a long time, then can manage a long time, because their long-term memory is fine. But when something changes (like your grandfather going into hospital), it can often completely destabilize them and they often don't seem to get back to their prior level of functioning. I'm sorry your family had to go through that.
My dad died with Lewy Body Dementia and it was absolutely terrible. He was hallucinating terrible things and would be up all night terrified.
I called him once when he was in the hospital and had to be restrained. He begged me to come get him because he thought he had been kidnapped and was being held in a barn somewhere. There was no convincing him that the people around him were doctors and nurses who were trying to help him.
After I told him I couldn't come (I was in another country at the time) he begged me to call the police. By the end of the call he told me the barn was on fire and he was going to burn alive. It was enough to convince me that I needed to be in control of when and how I die.
My dad had no idea what was going on and he was 100x worse for it.
Out of curiosity, have you seen dementia first-hand, or are you just making academic assumptions?
Having first-hand experience from a care perspective doesn't give anyone any more insight into what's going on from a biological or mental standpoint.
I don't think that could possibly be true unless you are yourself very limited in your cognitive capacity. Spending many hours with someone as their cognition is eroded by disease process, how can you help learning about the disease and the consequences? It would be like raising children and ending up not understanding more about developmental psychology. Not saying it will purge your thoughts of all mistakes, but you will learn a lot. Even simple things like the end of the day is a low point of cognition for dementia patients. The cycle between forgetfulness and poor nutrition. How the rhythms of conversation can last longer than the content of the conversations. How music can be a comfort when no words matter. How one can forgot one's children yet still have the ability to see if they are hiding upset feelings. The strange mosaic of skills and abilities that make up our full humanity.
Worse for whom? The latter seems a lot less distressing for the subject (assuming you have the "blissful ignorance" dementia and not "constant fear" dementia"), the former sounds like a novel form of torture.
There's a reason we sedate people undergoing most medical operations.
Worse for both, the patient & the loved ones. Even with "blissful ignorance" dementia (in my limited experience) people can very quickly get agitated. Yes, they may calm down quickly too, but it's not always calm.
The problem with dementia isn't just at the "old person chilling in room" state, as I mentioned if it progresses far enough (which is nearly guaranteed if they live long enough) basic bodily functions become difficult. A parallel case of eg paralyzed people (both of whom are unable to swallow properly for different reasons) shows how frequently they can die from something as simple as choking on their own saliva.
> There's a reason we sedate people undergoing most medical operations.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, if you're referring to people waking up but being unable to move being potentially torturous I agree.
> Or just be completely unaware of what is going on but not necessarily in poor health?
It's not either-or, it's both. It takes time to reach the point where you're "unaware". Before that, you're fully aware of what's happening and that there's no escape. After that point, it will probably get "better" for you, the patient.
But it also gets way, way worse for everyone around you. With cancer, you're still yourself - you die as the person you were. With dementia (or Alzheimer's at least), you die twice, and people around you are left to tend to your corpse, which happens to move and eat (even if you forget to chew and swallow) for years after you're gone.
Exactly, as I've mentioned elsewhere, both my grandmothers got Alzheimers, and I have basically nothing but a couple of vague memories of them for the last few years of each of their lives, but their partners spent years tending to people who were already gone, both seeing them whither away, but also in effect losing so much of what was left of their own lives.
To me, they pretty much died once they stopped recognizing us. For one of them that was very soon after we realised something was wrong, and yet her body survived a decade after her mind was gone and it was awful seeing how it reduced her husband who spent all of those years in the same nursing home doing nothing but tending to her.
My other grandfather died of cancer a few years into his wife's alzheimers hospitalisation and frankly it feels to me like he got the better way out of him and his wife (but largely because it was a very aggressive cancer and he went during an attempted operation; maybe I'd have thought differently about it if he'd struggled with it for years).
One thing I wonder about: My dad had dementia and ended up pretty batty toward the end, though it came in waves and he was pretty lucid when he decided to "go". As I get older, I notice myself forgetting things more, but it mostly bothers me in the context of forgetting to do things at work. If I were retired, I'm not sure how much having a terrible short-term memory would affect my level of happiness. I can see myself living like my mother-in-law is now, in a kind of unagitated rolling 3 minute window of perception. Terrible for the people who have to clean up after me, but not necessarily so much from the other side of the glass.
Both scenarios scare me terribly. I wish I'll never have to find out which is worse, not for me or for any of my loved ones, but of course this is very unlikely...
There are preventative measures. The easiest and cheapest one is cardio exercise. I can’t run anymore, but I find the Quest VR headset to be a great way to do cardio workouts since you’re just playing video games. Much easier to do and less excuses than having to go to the gym.
Thank you. I felt for years that this is the way to go: I hate moving without purpose, and "being fit" is too abstract a goal for me to keep at it. But I don't mind at all moving to accomplish something, and honestly, getting a high-score in a game is as good a "something" as anything. I read a few opinions like yours, unfortunately, most were drowned in "VR doomerism" (doesn't work, too big, too heavy, motion sickness, low res, etc. etc.) - but I'm now at the point where it's becoming more and more apparent that I have to do something. You just gave me the final nudge and I firmly decided to try VR for cardio. Thanks :)
Throw in the late Edward Wellen's "Mind Slash Matter" for another variation.
This story is part of the reason I'd never want to know about where I land intelligence wise compared to other people. No matter the outcome, I don't think it could be good. I it's below average, I'll feel limited. If it's above average, I'll have added pressure of self expectations and maybe arrogance. That's not the case for everyone, but I'm happy where I am currently.
Back to the story - the use of grammar and spelling that progress throughout the story is so simple, but such a great way to portray his progress aside from the content of the story.
I discovered that intelligence is like height. It helps with the ability to reach but effort matters more. I was lazy for twenty years and put effort behind the wrong energy.
If I understood risk, consistent effort, and emotions better, I would have retired in my mid twenties.
What would you have needed to understand about risk and emotions to have retired in your mid twenties?
I thought buying bitcoin to pay work off related malware infections was "too expensive" at $300 when in reality I could have purchased several thousand bitcoin, had my client reimburse me, while keeping a chunk for myself because of course I would have.
also, the idea of being not being able to get hired or fired is really a silly concern as I always did my job well and did not want to leave my "safe" job.
Performing formalized risk assessments can provide you with insights about a risk you're thinking about taking. I think it helped me take the right risks and leave the workforce early.
Emotionally? Just* ignore them and pursue the thing that pays you the most. It's boring and it's unhealthy and it's hard and it's not romantic.
If i retired in my mid twenties I think I would still hate myself. Knowledge of algorithms doesn't feel like labor to me it still feels like a curse. I'm pretty braindead and hardly self-sufficient now but I'm glad I never took any of the big payouts I had presented to me in my youth. I still don't know what I would do with myself if I had any significant amount of money that wasn't earned off labor but instead me selling my stake in companies / projects / what-have-you.
Unfortunately my experience disagrees. Past a certain threshold, effort does indeed matter more, but most people don't meet that threshold.
If you're here, then there's a good chance you're in a social bubble where you rarely interact with people below that threshold.
I thought it's the inverse. There is a point where effort no longer matters because of talent, but people are rarely even close to that. So mostly people are defined by their effort.
I believe you are right in your hesitancy. I was administered an IQ test as part of the diagnostic process for another medical condition. To be honest, I wish I was never shown the results. Now, to be be fair, I did kind of intentionally dodge a few questions and did get in a slight argument with the proctor over one of the sections. But I doubt either one of those actions had much of an impact on the grand total of my score. I did end up receiving a medical diagnosis, and was informed that my IQ is not an accurate assessment of my intelligence due to the test not being calibrated for people with my disability. Still, seeing that that I had 2.5 SD between some scores did kind of explain some things about my past.
Of course, IQ is highly debated and all that. I think there is some merit to IQ, and I also think intelligence is far more complex than what can be measured on a test. Still, I wish I never knew my score because it forever lives in the back of my mind rent free when applying for jobs, trying to learn new skills, etc.. I've always had low self-esteem, so perhaps it a matter of personality when it comes to these things.
> “Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta.” ― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
I haven't read Brave New World, but this immediately reminded me of The Gods Themselves with Rationals, Emotionals and Patentals.
The only IQ score I’d be comfortable knowing for myself is it it’s 100. Perfectly average straight down the middle. I want to feel like my fate isn’t enhanced or hindered by my intelligence
How is that possible to not know? Have you never worked on a team?
Just because you think you're the smartest person in the room doesn't make it true.
While not the literal morale of the story of Flowers for Algernon, it's one of the big themes, i.e. your beliefs and understanding of your intelligence and the world around you change drastically with your "actual" intelligence.
> Just because you think you're the smartest person in the room doesn't make it true.
According to one (or more) of the annual Stack Overflow Developer Surveys, didn't something like over 90% of developers think they were better than the average developer?
My point is that I agree with you. What one thinks isn't always the reality.
Perception is just a horrible thing.
The fact that reality is WILDLY different for two people simply based on how they perceived it is exhausting.
Also it actually sums up why I hate managing people. Everyone is the star of their own show, and managing them is about showing them all the other actors. It's exhausting.
Having a clear picture where you fall with regards to a broad population is indeed very hard, particularly if we consider all the different dimensions of intelligence: mathematical ability? musicality? problem solving? negotiation? emotional intelligence? planning ability? lateral thinking?.
At best, by working in a team all you can achieve is to (rightly or wrongly) estimate your level within the team itself, but only with regards to the type of intelligence which is most used in the given context. And, given that the team members have most likely been selected for or were motivated to join because of their relevant abilities, the team is subject to selection bias.
As a result, on average, you are most likely to be very close to the perceived "average" intelligence of the teams to which you belong. Hence why impostor syndrome is so common in highly skilled professions — as a milder version of the Peter principle [0], people tend to climb to the level where their skills are average.
It is only when comparing the intelligence (or other abilities) of team members that are not relevant to their task, usually when socialising in another context, that you may become aware of broad differences and maybe get a better idea of where you fall in that specific dimension.
Whenever I work with someone more insightful and effective than me, I'm compelled to do better and get closer to their level. I've never had the thought that they must be more intrinsically intelligent.
Maybe try to seek out that experience then? I think its a little dangerous to go through life not understanding that there are levels of intrinsic intelligence. It should be fairly obvious. And it applies to everyone, you can read quotes of old physics nobel laureates that speak about Von Neumann as if he was not a human.
The take away should be that, yes some people are intrinsically smarter, but that is a crappy system to base self worth off of, because then only one person in the world gets to be happy.
Dangerous? Why would it be dangerous? If anything, believing you are less intelligent than someone more accomplished than you might incentivize you to be complacent and stay at your current level of development, because "I'll never be as smart as them."
It's also worth pushing back against the notion of a linear intelligence scale to begin with. There are many kinds of intelligence, some of which are not easy to measure.
I mean, there is a difference between an informed estimate and knowing for sure. Maybe that person you always work with is not the brightest programmer, but maybe they don't care about it as much as you. People can demonstrate intelligence is many different ways.
Plus, if they doesn't want to know, why does it matter? It's their life to live in ignorance. For this specific topic, I don't see any harm in leaving your actual IQ number a mystery for the cosmos.
As an 1980's "gifted" kid, believe me, they made sure you knew. IQ tests in 3rd grade, "enrichment" classes 3x a week, taking the SAT in 7th grade for some special program.
Later in life, most of these gifted kids were total disappointments. I know I am.
I was a 1990's "gifted" kid and would later come to appreciate the enrichment classes as an opportunity to interact with other kids who wouldn't make fun of me for knowing things and being able to figure things out fast. In the "normal" track you have to learn to hide all of that quickly or you get picked on. Once a week I could experience being normal.
If the expectation was that I would end up saving the world or something then sure I'm a disappointment, but I like to think I've gotten pretty far considering where I started.
I definitely enjoyed the enrichment classes. I didn't feel challenged again for years, until AP classes later in high school.
It reminds me of the Lewis Terman study. Terman was a psychologist and intelligence research that studied the lives some n > 5000 "gifted" children over the course of his entire life (and their entire lives too). In fact, the study is still going on to my knowledge.
Anyway, of the all the gifted children studied, many of them went to be fairly accomplished but never became anything noteworthy -- doctors, lawyers, teachers, researchers, etc..
However, two of the children that didn't meet the cut for the study due to not having a high enough IQ actually went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize separately in separate fields. Those two individuals were Luis Alvarez and William Shockley.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I was a "gifted" kid too. Turning 30 this year. I was in advanced classes from around 4th or 5th grade when they started separating us (suburban Texas) and then went to a special high school where I graduated with an associates degree and my high school diploma. Not trying to brag, just to relate and say I've been there.
I wouldn't say I was a disappointment, but I certainly didn't go as far as even the "smart" kids from my own graduating class. I know many of them are "real" engineers working for companies we all know and doing important work in hardware, architecture, civil projects, and aerospace. I feel dumb compared to them.
At the same time, I have a successful career in software, no debt, happily married for almost 10 years, moved to a different continent, etc etc. Sure, am I "smarter" than the average Joe? I guess, but knowing that information doesn't change anything about my life. If I took a real IQ test, I think I would also feel some sort of disappointment or pressure to live up to expectations or better myself in some way.
Idk; I guess that's why I made my original comment. The utility of knowing your IQ is "above average" is so useless to me, I'm not sure why anyone would want to knowingly saddle themselves with that knowledge. Be free, be happy, and be yourself.
One of the major issues is that IQ has basically no cardinality to my understanding. We can all agree that 105 score is "smarter" than a 100, but we cannot discern to what degree.
I've read some conjectures that IQ is quite accurate below average, but seems to fall apart rather quickly the further one starts looking at scores above 100. But who knows? I'm just some random dude with Internet access.
There are likely diminishing returns, depending on what you do in life, career, etc. Even the mythical 10x engineer probably doesn't need a 160 IQ. ;)
I don't know how they would know for sure. The result of a test? I'm sure it differs among domains in any case.
I can estimate people’s skill levels within different areas, but only get a very rough estimate of their general intelligence.
This is precisely why I will never take an IQ test.
Frankly, everyone's familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, but the lack of intelligence in this story reminds me of Roog by Philip K. Dick. It's about a dog's paranoia regarding the local garbage men. He tries to warn his "guardian," but all he can say is: Roog.
Everyone thinks they are familiar with the Dunning Kruger effect. Probably 95% of people get it wrong.
[I am not a psychologist, but here is my summary of how I think the real effect works...
Let's say we have a skill we can be assessed on a scale of 1-10. 1 is worst, 10 is best.
The popular perception of the Dunning Kruger effect is that people lower on the scale, say 2 or 3, rate themselves highly - say 7 or 8. And people who are higher - say a 7 or 8 - rate themselves more modestly - say a 5 or 6. i.e. people who are less skilled rate themselves as being better performers than people who are better.
The actual effect is a lot weaker, and a kind of reversion to the mean. If you are a 2 or 3 you may rate yourself a 4 or a 5. If you are a 7 or an 8 you may rate yourself as only a 6 or a 7. Less skilled people are well aware that they are less skilled, but may underestimate the degree of the effect.]
> Everyone thinks they are familiar with the Dunning Kruger effect. Probably 95% of people get it wrong.
The Dunning Kruger effect effect, eh?
>"Everyone thinks they are familiar with the Dunning Kruger effect. Probably 95% of people get it wrong."
How sublimely apropos!
You can't call out a percentage of people you plucked from thin air on not understanding something, then qualify your understanding as your own interpretation.
Are you aware that your whole post just said "Nobody understands the version of this thing in my head?" This us a studied thing. You need sources and conclusions drawn from them, not your own speculation (not that it was horribly off the mark, but come on, man)
Fair point - I just didn't want to make a post saying '95% of people get this wrong, but I'm not going to tell you how!' - the message is presenting, in my own simplified form, what I understand is the popular understanding of Dunning Kurger, versus how I understand the effect manifested in the study.
Of course my understanding is also based on some probably misremembered media, combined with a five minute refresher on the Wikipedia page, so it may be equally erronious. Please do you own research.
But he's correct. The original paper demonstrated an effect that has been widely miscommunicated and misinterpreted.
The exact percentage of people getting it wrong was plucked out of the air, but that's not the important part of his comment.
I await your peer-reviewed study on the Journal of Redditometrics and Hacker Newsodynamics on the relative frequency of people misusing the Dunning Kruger effect. In the meantime, I think I'll stick with my own perception of people misusing the result routinely to mean that stupid people think they're geniuses, because that's all I ever see myself.
Sure they can, it's called a joke.
Oh my god.
I'll see myself out.
of course, it is not actually paranoia - the garbage men really are evil non-human beings!
Phil Dick never outright states that the dog in "Roog" is wrong. That's the most likely interpretation, but given this is a PKD story, not the only one!
This just sounds like Courage the Cowardly Dog lol
I remember reading the story for the first time and my feelings of pity and horror when the protagonist's decline began.
With lifespans increasing, many of us will have Charlie's experience.
We read this aloud together in grade school. I skipped ahead and thoroughly regretted it. The class was still in the hopeful portion, and I had to watch them come to the same realization I did.
When you're that young, you're used to the idea that you will constantly learn, grow, and expand your horizons. The idea of regression is both real and likely is frightening and motivating. It's truly a story that has stuck with me.
That's an interesting insight. I didn't notice that Charlie's trajectory also works as an allegory for the regular mental decline of the average person
> the regular mental decline of the average person
of every person
I don't think that's true at all. Most people die before they fall to the level of intelligence the character does near the end of the novel. Even many 90-year olds are still fairly lucid.
The key word is 'allegory'
...if they live long enough.
(Pedantically, that decline may take less than 15 seconds.)
Charlie's trajectory may be your trajectory, not as an allegory. You may be that average person.
It wouldn't be allegory if it didn't apply to the majority of the bell curve. I'm not sure why you say "not an allegory." If Flowers for Algernon wasn't a story with something to teach us about our own lives, then I don't think so many of us would find it interesting.
The only reason some people escape this fate is that they die too young.
s/allegory/analogy/
It may just be a side effect of my dyslexia coping, but I read it as ‘analogy’ until reading your comment. Even then, I’m am pretty sure everyone knew they meant ‘analogy’ and just moved on. It’s okay to point out mistakes, but please be civil when doing so.
Hi, but I meant allegory indeed.
According to Wiktionary:
- (rhetoric) A narrative in which a character, place, or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences.
- A picture, book, or other form of communication using such representation.
- A symbolic representation which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, usually a moral or political one.
He might have been triggered by my use of "average". I realize it now that it may not have been adequate, sorry for that, English is not my first language.
My bad, my dyslexia and reacting to less-than polite comment got best of me :)
Indeed. I wish I could have been born in a world where I could use my skills for survival in the forests and die younger but have a more fulfilling life. Modern technological society is a disappointment, even if I am more comfortable.
You can still go die in the forest. One fellow had a book written about him for doing just that.
It's not the dying that matters. It's the opportunity to live in the forest that I would like. Life and death are part of existence and we should not try and escape that. It is only the pathological dream of modern technologists to escape death, which creates a rather abysmal life.
> It is only the pathological dream of modern technologists to escape death
It's not only their dream, it's also the plot of one of the world's oldest works of literature (The Epic of Gilgamesh). Distress over the inevitability of death is not a modern phenomenon, but we have succeeded in extending our lives further than any previous generation.
Consider taking up backpacking as a hobby (e.g. follow the /r/appalachiantrail subreddit,) or maybe volunteer with a scout troop that keeps an active hiking/camping schedule.
Do you do any outdoors activities? One thing I’ve learned over the years, and was somewhat surprised by, is that I find type-II outdoor fun more fulfilling than my hobbies or work. For me, it’s a mix of 1) nature is awesome and indifferently brutal af, 2) having/improvising/gaining knowledge and skills to handle situations you haven’t before, and 3) pushing yourself physically beyond some limit. I don’t like exercising and went far too many years not doing so, but when I have a trip on the calendar I tend to get out of my chair to stretch and strengthen regularly. If anything, using my skills for survival in the forests (and deserts, snow, etc) will help me reach death later and with a better quality of life. Otherwise, I joke with my wife that if I lose my faculties, she can leave me at the edge of the Grand Canyon in my wheelchair and maybe I’ll just simply forget to set the brake.
Maybe I replied too hastily. I reread your comment and it seems you lament intertwined societal/technological changes rather than simply wishing to spend more time hanging out with the trees.
I do lots. I spend every second I can outdoors, and I'm a wildlife photographer also...
You could get pretty close if you wanted to
Not really. There are very few wild areas left, especially in warmer areas. Much of the natural resources of these areas are contaminated such as water. Natural areas are often government-managed or privately owned. Gone are the days where you could wander off into the wild and just live as some of the indigineous tribes used to.
You could live as long as you wanted on BLM land, as long as you kept moving.
Of course, you'd probably die pretty quickly, but nobody would stop you.
The chance of living on a proverbial paradisal desert island isn't available anymore; those places are desirable!
Nomadland documents the writer and an entire subpopulation (working, not going to die) moving along BLM lands to seasonal agricultural jobs and warehouse jobs and National Park service jobs, it sounds kind of exhausting and precarious, not very different from struggling in a single day job.
> BLM
What does this mean? I doubt it stands for the political acronym that first comes to my mind.
Bureau of Land Management
Sure, but if you wanted to detach from the modern economy and trappings of modernity like supply chains and life-extending healthcare, you could save up some money, get some remote, off-grid land, and live a subsistence life. It’s not free, but startup costs would be less than a year of city living.
It is quite the impactful story. Saw it under a Twitter (X) thread on IQ and orders of thinking - worth the read.
The first book I couldn't put down and had to read in one sitting. It may be the origin of my fear of mental decline, which is much more horrific than death to me.
Hard agree - this book inspired a fear in me that led me to seek every possible preventative method to combat dementia or other neurodegenerative diseases. In case anyone wants to see my (admittedly amateur) research, I've listed some things I've found below.
- Exercise regularly and mitigate conditions like diabetes, hypertension*, high cholesterol [1] (aerobic exercise seems to be the best for this, likely because it increases cerebral blood flow)
- Avoid night shift work/disrupting the circadian rhythm [2] (seems to be linked to poor sleep's impact on cardiovascular health, which has in turn seen a strong link to dementia developing)
- Increase your cognitive reserve (math is very commonly mentioned as a way to boost this but I don't think it's the only way) seems to insulate you from the impacts of dementia [3] (this citation isn't a formal paper per se but this statement has been echoed across other articles[4][5])
- Read something regularly [6][7] (I have also seen articles mentioning reciting mantras, but I can't find them at the moment)
- Small doses of nicotine [8][9][10] (I am at work right now so I cannot verify whether or not these studies were funded by tobacco companies - maybe take this one with a grain of salt. Additionally, smoking cigarettes have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. It may be better to try patches or lozenges?)
* There are studies[11][12][13] that suggest high blood pressure in seniors can lead to an increased risk of dementia or worsened cognitive function for those with dementia. One common guess is that the reduced blood flow to the brain in old age is the primary issue, but it could be another covariate that leads to . Not a concern for most of us on this site (I think)
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258000/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6164904/
[3] https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/what-is-cogniti...
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3507991/
[5] https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/building-cognitive...
[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482376/
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911991/
[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7912116/
[9] https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s4...
[10] https://www.alzheimers.gov/clinical-trials/memory-improvemen...
[11] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8608286/
[12] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
[13] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14694027/
Edited for markdown
Be wary of taking nicotine. I recall people becoming addicted after thinking they could handle it after reading Gwern's post on nicotine.
Absolutely, I don't really engage at all with it as I know I have addictive tendencies
I am surprised nothing about sociality shows up in your list.
Embarrassed to admit it, but I was a bit tunnel-visioned on what I could accomplish on my own to minimize the risk of neurodegenerative disease. I did a cursory search and found some articles [1][2] highlighting a similar benefit to continued learning/brain exercises (increased cognitive reserve, which may not necessarily reduce the risk of developing dementia but should slow its onset considerably).
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-023-00387-0
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038528/
Edited for clarity
Also read this in one sitting. Couldn't put it down, so thought-provoking.
"I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life."
Regardless of one's political opinion of Ronald Reagan, his letter announcing his Alzheimer's diagnosis is relevant and poignant.
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/reagans-...
Careful there...
NOTICE WARNING CONCERNING THE REPRODUCTION OF THIS LETTER
The Reagan Library is authorized to make copies of this letter available only for the purpose of private study, scholarship or research. This letter may not be reproduced for publication without the expressed consent of the personal representative of Ronald Reagan. For more information contact: Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation 40 Presidential Drive Simi Valley, CA 93065 1-805-522-2977
What are you saying? It is on the internet, it's fine to link to public sites...
They didn't reproduce the letter, they simply showed you where the people authorized to make such a reproduction have posted the letter.
If it makes you feel more comfortable, here is instead a reproduction by PBS: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/reagan-...
and another by Time, including an image of the original handwritten letter: https://time.com/4473625/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-letter/
neither of which include the encumbrance that the Reagan Library added to their copy.
Presumably both Time and PBS obtained consent! I thought it less likely that a HN commenter had received explicit permission to reproduce, and just wanted to make sure poster didn't get in any trouble. But really, I was just making a dumb joke about conspicuous displays of power, wherever they may come from.
Nancy Reagan was a pretty decent president [for Ronnie's 2nd term, probably its entirety]. Not my favorite oligarchy figureheads, but definitely not the worst. May they rest in peace.
Don't you mean Nancy Reagan's astrologer was a pretty decent president?
was she running things? this is the first i am hearing of it
Popular conspiracy theory.
It's interesting to compare this story to the movie Limitless, which has a fairly similar premise, but ends on a positive note. Algernon seems to have more influence, probably because of it is fundamentally a kind of morality tale, but I actually kind of prefer Limitless, [0] as limited as its plot is.
There is something motivational about it, which is probably why there are so many YouTube productivity videos with the soundtrack. [1] I get the same feeling from The Last Samurai a book (unrelated to the Tom Cruise movie) by Helen DeWitt, which is about raising a genius child.
I don't know what the psychological effect is called, but there does seem to be something significant to the idea that it's inspiring to read about/watch extremely intelligent people flexing their intelligence.
0. The film is based on a book, The Dark Fields, which doesn't seem quite so positive, although I haven't read it.
Can also recommend the Ted Chiang story Understand [1], which adds in a dash of The Most Dangerous Game.
I love Ted Chiang and that story is a banger. The movies like Limitless, Lucy or Phenomenon don't really take the concept to its conclusions. Limitless posits day trading, or politics, as the highest goal. Lucy goes post human in a silly, fantasy way. Phenomenon was pretty cool except for the telekinesis. But Understand sort of hits all the bases and I really like the thesis that there is an irreducible, existential struggle between Utilitarianism and Aesthetics. And of course, the realization that the protag is actually the bad guy. Not a huge fan of the idea of "programming" another person with engrams and random stuff in the environment, to like, die, but it's more plausible than telekinesis!
He also wrote the best, IMHO, time-travel story ever written: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_and_the_Alchemist.... A gorgeous little tale.
I actually found this story from a previous HN thread and was absolutely blown away. Such an excellent short story.
Incredible story. Would love if anyone has any similar recommendations.
Maybe Awakenings?
Awakenings is still fiction, but it's based on real events. Which makes it even more poignant to me.
Ah yes I read that one too and it's another good example.
There's also a great Star Trek episode, the Nth Degree, where Barclay becomes the smartest man alive. The cast is typically annoyed with him so it's great to see the looks of admiration in their faces as he's suddenly able to solve engineering problems faster than Data, brings Beverly to tears in an acting scene they perform together and is confident enough to "make a pass" at Troi.
By far the best episode, IMO.
Limitless the book was much better than Limitless the movie. And, yes, it doesn't have a Hollywood-style happy ending at all.
I just finished reading "Flowers for Algernon" the short story and I never read the novel. It also immediately reminded me of "Limitless". (The book, I wouldn't compare it to the movie, again, at least because of that silly "happy end", which seems to be obligatory in the Hollywood.) If you want somebody's (i.e. mine) take on it: well, "Limitless" was much, much better of a read. I was a lot younger when I read it, so I don't how I would react now, but I remember it to be pleasantly realistic, unlike the vast majority of [English] sci-fi. Unlike in the movie, though, there was a lot less "magic" to MDT. There was no silly stuff like being suddenly able to multiply 10-digit numbers in the head and similar Hollywood representations of "being incredibly intelligent" which are just annoyingly stupid, if you ask me. In the book it felt very real, it was very easy to "feel" what is that effect. It's basically just an exceptionally potent nootropic drug, think "amphetamine, but better". And, yes, that was motivational. This is the main reason I remembered it, actually: there I very much felt how the protagonist was "improved". In the "Flowers for Argernon", on the other hand, it just feels like author is trying to explore some idea he isn't mentally equipped to explore. I.e., he has no idea what he is trying to describe. It's childish and unrealistic.
All I can say about "Flowers for Algernon" the short story — I was thinking that the novel must be much better for this to be considered worthwhile. But then there is an addendum at the end of this:
> The novel, published as a mainstream work by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, is not as effective as the story version, which is much tighter and written from a very successfully executed first-person point of view.
Soo… yeah. I'm not gonna try it right now. But then, again, I must admit that anybody who mostly likes sci-fi shouldn't even listen to me, because I can say only bad things about vast majority of famous sci-fi books, with only just a couple exceptions. Mostly it's literally just pulp fiction, comic books without pictures. Not what I expect when somebody talks about "literature".
This is the original short story. I recommend that people read the full book instead or at least read the book first to avoid spoilers. It's at least as good as the short story but expands on the ideas and the story line significantly.
Does the book add significant new ideas or is it just more explicit about the consequences? I generally love scifi for the ideas much more so than for story and am torn between the book and the short story.
The main thrust of the story (the main sci-fi component) is contained in both. But it is fleshed out better in the full book. However, neither is a story that contains a ton of novel Sci-Fi ideas. For that I would direct you to stories and books by Greg Egan.
Thanks! Yep, Egan is one of my favorites
I'd recommend picking the story or novel depending on which you can finish in one go. It's gripping and I feel like breaking it up might take away from the experience.
There is also a terrible 1968 movie called "Charly" that is worth watching just for the motorcycle scenes.
> It's at least as good as the short story but expands on the ideas and the story line significantly.
I don't know about this one (I only read the story) but every time I've read a full novel that was originally a short or novelette it felt dragged out. Even when I didn't know beforehand it was made out of a short.
It's sad that the market for shorts is basically gone.
Oh... wait! Let's go on a tangent.
I used to subscribe to Asimov's on Kindle before they kicked separate subscriptions out and left only Kindle unlimited available...
Asimov's went to some dubious solution through some distributor that had their own mobile app, so I didn't renew there.
Well guess what: I checked Asimov's again and now they still have the dubious app but it looks like you can subscribe directly on their site and get epubs and pdfs! Guess I wasn't the only one who didn't like the dubious app...
There is hope for shorts after all...
After my class read this book in high school, we wrote the author and he responded. How often does that happen in today’s schools?
It depends what the book is. For science fiction (or fantasy) stories like this, it's pretty common. And many are actually pretty active on social media as well.
Probably the most well known example is Neil Gaiman who is extremely active on tumblr, at least prior to Elon used to be extremely active on twitter, and would regularly drop into discussions of their works.
Other notable examples (albeit less active) off the top of my head include James S.A. Corey (Daniel Abraham and Ty Frank) and Andy Weir.
Just yesterday, my spouse was unpacking and came across a stack of envelopes containing correspondence I had received from authors I'd written to as a kid. I know then it felt really magical to have them write to me, especially since most of them were actually hand-written and discussed what I said meaningfully.
I don't remember it being a result of a teacher prompting me, though I suspect it was. They weren't books I read in school, but perhaps a teacher asked us what books were our favorites and had us send out letters. They're all laminated, too, which makes me think the teacher(s) took them and preserved them for us.
The only celebrity mail I recall writing, definitely as a class requirement, was to Carl Sagan. I was very disappointed to receive a form letter from his secretary in response.
Probably not often, the author died in 2014.
I think he was referring to schools writing to authors. Not this author.
Maybe referring to the author responding too.
I wouldn't say it's unusual.
Whenever I read a good book, see a great film, or appreciate an art piece, I try to track down the creator to send them a note of thanks. I'd say maybe 30% reply?
That said, I can't imagine creating something that people are still directly impacted by 60 years later. Software just doesn't seem to work like that
I do this with bands I really like, particularly newer groups whose first "hit" I cannot get out of my head. Few respond, but the point is I directly give them more money than they'd get through their label's playcount.
Hint to artists: put up a bitcoin receiving address on your portfolio (it'd make it a bunch easier).
Elie Wiesel responded to one of my specific questions [in his classroom response letter, decades ago]. Very powerful moment (hopefully not staged by my great English teacher of yesteryear).
Writing the author or the author responding?
Amazing huh? Me and my daughter finished this Dutch bedtime story book, and we wrote the artist to to tell him how much we liked his work. We actually received a heartwarming reply back, in which he gracefully accepted the compliment, and wished us well.
Same post two years ago, 210 comments
A friend of mine brought this book up when she finally went on ADD medication. At first she was like "wow, I can function!" Then she remembered reading this story and says she always fears the medication no longer working.
A classic, and increasingly relevant as we continue to push the limits of improving human performance and fixing sub-optimal neurological phenomena like depression and ADD/ADHD.
As someone with ADHD, I have had this discussion with doctors numerous times. Not a single one of them have ever read F4A, but many were aware of the plot at least.
I still warn people new to ADHD about the sinister side(s) of medication. One of the issues I learned real quick during the shortage of the past few years is that what ever is "given" can be "taken."
I have a decent enough job that provides me a stable life. Nothing to write home about. However, when I was off medication for bits during the shortage, I noticed that my life was built on a house a cards. I managed to create a life that I could not sustain without medication. Everything worked out in the end, but I got a nice glimpse of the what awaited me, and it's a long fall back to rock bottom.
It's made me a bit paranoid in the sense that I feel like I have to be overly cautious about financial and occupational decisions (not a bad thing, I suppose). If I were to buy a house with a certain level of income or take on a new role, I need to be certain that in a "worst case scenario" that I can still chew whatever I bit off.
I guess all of humanity is in this condition with regard to modern technology. One solar flare and we re-learn what it’s like to dig in the mud in the cold covered in parasites and then die of plague.
Life is layers and layers of fragile.
I agree, and I think that is partly my problem to some degree -- a problem that stems from luxury.
Modern technology is kind of the root of most of my issues. I could survive like most people because the expectation of sitting in an office for 8+ hours a day would vanish. My deficits might be reduced, nonexistent, and/or potentially beneficial. I guess in some sense, I would imagine I might feel more "capable" in the world of a muddy fight for our survival. Then again, I could just die in childhood from a deep cut.
Of course, modern life is too good to give up. Despite its comforts, it's clear modern life benefits some more than others (or any lifestyle for that matter).
Thanks for reminding me to be thankful for what I do have. :)
Tons of people scared of mental and other forms of decline here. Hey, I got news! It's 2024. We understand a fair deal more of how our biochemistry works. We have more computing power than ever, and it's going to be increasing thanks to the crazy amounts of computing power our latest AIs need. That means that we can understand even more of how our biochemistry works by doing exactly what each drug company is doing: running computer simulations. If your eventual decline scares you, it's unlikely that you can change your outcomes. But not impossible. It's still perfectly rational to find your peace in resignation, but it's not the only option anymore.
There are a lot of things that can already be done - for me I have ADHD related dopamine dysregulation resulting in brain fog so I take slow acting dopamine reuptake inhibitors in the form of low dose modafinil. I also take strict care of my diet, sleep and other medications and I feel as sharp as ever. And since I'm already on top of it I do hope that I can maintain this into old age. I have a friend and former work colleague in his early 50s that is clearly suffering from a similar worsening ADHD brain fog but I've been unable to convince him to do anything about it. Every time I try he acts as if it's the first time I'm mentioning it. He knows he has memory issues but considers it more of a problem for other people since he is still able to cope within his daily routines. He is very anti-medication and thinks there is nothing really wrong with him. I think some medications and lifestyle changes could clear up his brain fog and bring him back to full mental capacity. I don't think he is past the point of no-return physically but there is no way for me to convince him to try meds, so in effect he's past the point of no-return mentally. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck that is still preventable but all my attempts at preventing it have thus far been ineffectual and likely always will be.
Either way you will certainly decline and eventually die.
You will experience decline across many axis of your life as you age. An exercise that helps me accept this is to frame my identify in terms of things I will not lose.
- I like to hike, but what I really love is to be in nature and surrounded by trees.
- I like being funny and quick-witted, but what I really love is to laugh and see other laugh.
- I like to dance, but what I really love is to feel the rhythm of music in my body.
Obviously some of this is self-delusion (I'd also like to be young, strong and smart) but I find it helps.
Related:
Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31875692 - June 2022 (207 comments)
I think FfA is a bigger part of our culture than we realize. I use it to describe the 12 hours between waking and adderall wearing off and most people track (a non-frivolous comparison).
Sorry can you elaborate or provide a link to what you're alluding to? Is Adderall generally considered an intelligence booster?
> Is Adderall generally considered an intelligence booster?
I'd say it boosts ability to utilize cognition. For me it thins brain fog and clarifies what I can see on the other side.
With it, I can reason to the point where learning and understanding happens. For a period of time. Most days.
Apropos essay from a recent segment of This American Life:
On Recognition, Caring, and Dementia:
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.111...
Radio segment:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/823/the-question-trap/act-t...
Isn't this a grievous act of piracy? Daniel Keyes only died in 2014 so this story should be under The Holy Copyright (r) (tm) until 2089!
All repent and praise the Mouse!
I was gonna say, I don't think piracy like this is allowed on HN. Of course, piracy and the like is only a thing if someone enforces it, so as long as there's no takedown notices to HN or the site that hosts it there's nothing to do I suppose.
Holy $DEITY, i did the math. Flowers for Algernon was first published in 1959 in story form... this means it will be under copyright for 130 years.
Of course this is a masterpiece and isn't likely to get lost... but which copyright holder is going to keep the B and C lists available for legal access for the whole 130 years?
And speaking of which, is the story form of Flowers for Algernon available legally anywhere? The lengthened book form yes, probably. But personally I think the original form is better.
Thanks Disney.
No, since it was published before the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, it will be under copyright for 95 years, expiring in 2055.
In which countries? Didn't the latest global whateveritscalled copyright treaty pick the 75 years after the author's death thing for everything?
I just finished this book. I felt the author could have done more with Charlies genius stage. Not sure why, that part just felt flat somehow. The rising and the subsequent decline stages were really gripping though. Like he was describing the thought process of a surprised friendly dog. Id give it 4/5. Really good story.
You might like Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch. Similar sort of premise but goes further.
Thanks for the tip. Looks really interesting. I'll check it out.
Daniel Keyes wrote a book in 2000 about writing the book…Algernon, Charlie and I…
The ending has the author talking to the scientists doing the research described in Flowers for Algernon.
Science wasn’t anymore put off by fiction than the scientists currently resurrecting the woolly mammoth (see novel Jurassic Park)…
Parodied by Always Sunny in Philadelphia S09E08 "Flowers for Charlie".
Also referenced by the TV show Lost:
I haven't read this, but I'm a fan of "But Never a Key," a song whose lyrics reference the story:
https://dirtpoorrobins.bandcamp.com/track/but-never-a-key-de...
https://open.spotify.com/track/5NXt7fGhxFGfU6h1m9x06A
The album it's on (Deadhorse, by Dirt Poor Robins) is also excellent if you like apocalyptic cinematic rock with a sci-fi radio drama vibe.
I am currently reading the book (halfway trough) so I am not going to read the paper out of the fear of spoilers. I just want to recommend the book and say that the book is incredible, emotional roller coaster like nothing I have read so far.
When creating a business process, designing for resilience in the face of changing staff and resources, can be an objective. Perhaps it should also be prioritized when designing one's own life processes? Consider two elders, one with a long-standing practice of using written notes in their life, and one without. As their memories decline, one compensates with notes, and degrades gracefully. The other, loses life scope far more sharply. And by the time the need becomes pressing, adding such practice becomes difficult. Just something I ran into ~recently.
The film Poor Things recently reminded me to Flowers to Algernon a lot
yup.. Flowers of algernon, meets Baribie, meets The Lighthouse !
really great movie
What's the context here? This is not the whole book I think?
Originally it was just a short story. The book was published later.
And there was an educational version, I read it in junior high. Read the full version in Highschool (not as part of a class).
Musical tribute by Kathy Mar:
Like others, this story was very impactful on me (and still is).
Over the years, though, my understanding of “intelligence” has evolved and I’m of the opinion today that “it” is several independent (but not unrelated) things: the abilities to learn, to remember, to recall, to connect, to imagine are all manifest in different combinations to different effect. That complexity an nuance shows in people and explains so much.
I loved this book when I read it the first time, really touching. The theme most personal to me was that the brainier you are, the lonelier you get.
As someone prescribed a medication that affects the mind, I remember this book haunting me for some time after reading it in grade school. Skimming it again today, that same fear returns. Dementia and/or Parkinsons will eventually take my mind from me. After having two grandparents pass away in the last year, I've come to terms with that part. But when? Will it be worse for me?
Daniel Hayes' only other published book is a non-fiction biography of Billy Milligan, a free man who walks among us, responsible for multiple murders; Billy's multiple personalities were neat to explore, particularly his alter-ego "David, the Keeper of Hate" [I can relate].
----
Algernon's funeral literally made me cry the first time reading, and still ruminates fumy tears to this day.
I can't underline enough how much this book impacted me. In ways that I'm fairly confident I do not understand. I certainly didn't understand the book when I was a kid, but it still stuck with me. I think it was my first real exposure to the trope of people being thoughtlessly callous to people on presumed worthiness.
I love this story. It's a lot more humble and nuanced than the similar one by Ted Chiang called "Understand".
This was the basis for the film Charly [1] (disclaimer: I've read the story but have not seen the film).
This is one of my favorite books to think about recently.
Technology augments us and removes our ability to do things any other way. This can be good, but it can also be bad. AI will be the drug that turns society into Charlie. I hope it will last.
The movie "Charly" made from this book is good, and it's on youtube.
Many years ago now I saw a stage play based on this book. I went in with a few reservations but was pleasantly surprised with how good it was.
That twist could be seen coming from a mile away. Years and years of media consumption probably. ("Seinfeld is not funny")
It's 50 years old and has been parodied and copied many times.
Not only that but the author specifically wanted to write a "classic tragedy". Of course it hits familiar story beats.
I own a copy of the April 1959 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction when this first appeared in print.
Read the short story just a few weeks ago. It's still one of my favorite. So beautiful, so haunting.
this is why i don’t take adderal
i dare not glimpse what i can be for to lose it seems like a terrifying fate
I have ADHD and I took Adderal for a while and it definitely does not make you smarter. It makes you more focused and there are plusses and minuses to that.
My experience with Adderall in my adolescence was that it made me more obnoxious towards my romantic partner and that when we did share affection while i'd want more things like my lips just felt numb. Doing more isn't always better.
For me, Ritalin came with attitude problems but not Adderall. My sons work better with Ritalin. Meanwhile, my sister has no access to healthcare so anything at all would work better.
I know a lot of people who are on ADHD medication and they're universally positive about it; nobody says they lost something. What they gained is mental silence so that for the first time in their lives they can think and focus clearly. Also emotional stabilisation.
It can be a mixed bag, and I personally don't take stims anymore.
But avoidance of medication just makes me thinks of the deaf people who oppose treatment because they worry they wouldn't be culturally deaf anymore.
> his is why i don’t take adderal ... i dare not glimpse what i can be for to lose it
Counterpoint. Each day I'm gifted some hours where I can think more like normal.
I remember reading this in 7th grade for summer reading. Enjoyable book!
This book left me gutted.
Check out the 6 album cycle that depicts the gradual degradation of dementia: Everywhere at the end of time by The Caretaker. A brilliantly imaginative work.
Chatgpt: This ambitious project was released in stages (or "stages") from 2016 to 2019, across six albums, each representing a different phase of dementia. Through his distinctive use of manipulated pre-World War II ballroom music, The Caretaker, aka Leyland Kirby, explores the progression of the disease, from subtle early signs to the total disintegration of memory and understanding. The work is both an artistic exploration and an empathetic representation of the condition's impact on the human mind and memory.
My absolute favourite book.
This book was a good read
Makes me wonder if I even know how to read.
tear-squeezing teen novel
PS When I read it was so fake when the then-genius protagonist (that is on above-human level) finds it oh-so interesting to talk to that woman-professor.
Great story, but terrible title. I'm not sure exactly what the point of a title is, but if it's to inform about what the story is, or entice, it does neither.
Engineering robot-person who cannot comprehend art with unquantifiable emotional value sneers, self-righteously at critically acclaimed art. He knows better because he knows calculus AND he organised his pens in chronological order of their manufacture date this morning. The electric feeling of restrained satisfaction had prickled across all the cropped hairs of his protruding neck. Everything must have logical meaning, he says. His wife peels away from him laboriously like the protective film he never takes off electrical products. I'm going to sleep, she says.
Pretty sure that was the joke, engineering robot-person.
What makes you think they are joking?
Many fictional titles explain very little if you have not already read the work. Take "lord of the rings" for example, or "Anna Karenina", or even "the Bible".
"Flowers for Algernon" is a fine, memorable title that makes sense in the context of what the story is about.
I consulted an AI to see if it could recommend a better title for "Lord of the Rings" - and (I am not making this up) it suggested "Ringworld"....
Do I hear the librarian going "Ook"? Sir Terry must be turning in his grave.
Edit: Note -- I confused Ringworld with Discworld, as pointed out by rowyourboat below.
I think you are confusing rings with discs. Larry Niven is the one doing the spinning
My apologies. You are correct indeed.
But the "AI" recommendation does sound like it came from a Discworld book.
On that note, I really wish someone would name their AI after Bergholt Stuttley a.k.a Bloody Stupid Johnson.
to bring this full circle, terry pratchett's early science fiction novel "strata" was largely a parody of "ringworld". not as good as his post-stride-hitting discworld books, but worth a read anyway
Did you read the book? (Spoiler Alert) Basically the only thing remaining with Charlie after his regression was the memory of his friend Algernon. A "mere" laboratory rat, like himself. That's a message about what things really matter in the long run.
It's a story that is a classical part of education for most adults who have gone through it (US-focused).
Perhaps you didn't read it. If your education journey was in another locale, are there any stories that stick with you that strike a similar contemplation, of the hubris of man and the untamed heart?
The Terminal Man by Michael Crichton