Another great post! But in some ways its depressing. To think of all the potential out there, that will never be known because of the way our educational systems work. Because of the way our society functions. It truly was happenstance-- a bringing together of several different people/activities all at the same time that led Kaphar to become who he was and do what he did. If just one of those elements was missing-- would you have been able to tell the story you did? I guess in some ways, we can’t control for this, other than trying to get folks to appreciate that everyone has different skills, abilities, methods of learning, and that we all provide value, and ought to be allowed and given the opportunity to figure out what that is. What would society be like if we did that?
Bridgitte, I completely agree. My glass-half-full take on this is that, because we're missing so much, we only have to get a little better at helping (or allowing) people to find better fit to have a significant impact. But in general I agree with you. The Nobel laureate economist Ted Schultz once criticized his fields' study of education by saying that researchers had studied the returns to higher education in terms of skills learned, but not in terms of giving people a chance to try things so that they learn about themselves and improve their match quality — or degree of fit between who they are and what they do. My read of subsequent research on that issue is that the return of higher education in terms of helping people find better match quality is often higher than to the returns on the actual stuff they learn. Of course, not everyone gets higher education, and I think the "sampling" aspect of higher ed is under threat, unfortunately.
Even when you do find what you are good at, it is often too late for our youth-obsessed culture. I grew up in a council estate in Scotland (a housing project for American readers) in poverty and I had a meandering road to get to where I am now, feeling like I am just hitting my stride. However, I am doing so at nearly 50 years old, the point at which our culture says you should be at "your peak" (I feel very much in the foothills!).
I loved this story and related to it in a lot of ways. Self-learning is what gets most of us through art school, not that there weren't some amazing professors, but some of those open-ended exploratory classes, were a bit of a nightmare. Something about having time to sit and stew in your own curiosity can create amazing results if you learn to teach yourself.
Zach, beautiful phrase here: "having time to sit and stew in your own curiosity." I think striking that balance of some structure but not too much — generative challenges or experiments, really — is a real art of teaching, including self-teaching!
Amazing read! Would you say that the lack of a structured learning environment is what made the difference in Kaphar's interest in it? Thinking about school, it's very much a structured and rigid learning system, one that he did not thrive in, whereas when let loose with minimal guidance, he found the grit to learn on his own.
Sorin, that's a great question! I was just on a flight reading part of an academic book that sort of reviewed cognitive psychology work on creativity, and the author points out this apparent "sweet spot" of structure for learning, where none at all may not lead to useful experimentation, but too much leads even very skilled practitioners to rigidity. My guess is that the sort of modestly structured environment he eventually found, where his learning wasn't micromanaged, but where he was surrounded by people who knew things he didn't, was probably a fortuitous balance. ...I understand some of reasons we have rigid learning structures, but I also wonder how many "hidden talents" might emerge if the pathways were more diverse. I'm rambling, but clearly, as you noticed, he had a lot to give, but was a disaster in the rigid system.
P.S. I'm right this moment reading an article about the Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek, and came across this: "...[he] received poor grades in every subject save biology, failing in Latin, Greek, and math. Nevertheless, in his early years he exhibited an intellectual trait that stayed with him for his entire life: he was a voracious reader with a broad range of interests, something of an autodidact. The rigid pedagogy of late imperial Austria didn't suit his talents."
Thank you for the excerpt! Learning pathways are always fascinating to explore. I recall barely passing chemistry in my first year of middle-school, took a summer class where I had a wonderful tutor who ran with me through the whole year's worth of material in 2 months; I went on to get straight A's for the next 5 years in Chemistry. I lean towards neither extreme of teaching methods, I believe your statement holds true: "...structure for learning, where none at all may not lead to useful experimentation, but too much leads even very skilled practitioners to rigidity."
I also see this in the learning curve of first time founders, where they can be told how to build a company or how to conduct customer interviews a million times over to no avail. The best ones ingest as much information as they can, go out and do it for themselves, make painfully obvious mistakes, derive their own learnings, and then come back with questions. If there's too much rigidity in the workshops, and we tell them exactly how to do something, it leads them to come back with no results and blame the workshop itself. Almost as if the lack of freedom to learn for themselves (and find the grit to do it) leads to them never entering a learning mindset in the first place, making the process a transactional one.
Ironically I'm writing this comment as I'm on a train to deliver a workshop to first time founders. Something to keep in mind as I refine the slides.
Thank you for a wonderful uplifting message especially welcome this Thanksgiving week. I am thinking that traction comes with each success that then makes for more traction- and the converse- that not feeling successful leads to a downward spiral. He seems to find his own inner traction as well . And I imagine having a love cheering you on helps keep the forward momentum dynamic going. Finding an environment that helps you thrive is what we can all be grateful for this Thanksgiving.
Nice piece. It also seemed Kaphar managed to stay attuned to his inner voice despite lacking external validation or success early on. His capacity to stay rooted in his own desires (and not conform) produced unique and valuable work.
I know I quoted Elizabeth Gilbert’s Big Magic on your last post, but it feels appropriate once again. She touches on “genius,” how the Greeks and Romans thought about it, which I find more helpful:
“The Greeks and the Romans both believed in the idea of an external daemon of creativity—a sort of house elf, if you will, who lived within the walls of your home and who sometimes aided you in your labors. The Romans had a specific term for that helpful house elf. They called it your genius—your guardian deity, the conduit of your inspiration. Which is to say, the Romans didn’t believe that an exceptionally gifted person was a genius; they believed that an exceptionally gifted person had a genius.”
Steve, I love these, please keep them coming when it strikes you! ...and, on a funny note, this reminded me of a funny line in my favorite play, The Pillowman. It comes in a part when the main character (a writer), is talking about a short story he wrote in which Shakespeare keeps captive some sort of small creature who he forces to write plays for him. The writer jokes something like, "well, he didn't write all those plays himself." It's a funny moment in a very dark play, but I think contains a grain of truth from the writer perspective.
Another great post! But in some ways its depressing. To think of all the potential out there, that will never be known because of the way our educational systems work. Because of the way our society functions. It truly was happenstance-- a bringing together of several different people/activities all at the same time that led Kaphar to become who he was and do what he did. If just one of those elements was missing-- would you have been able to tell the story you did? I guess in some ways, we can’t control for this, other than trying to get folks to appreciate that everyone has different skills, abilities, methods of learning, and that we all provide value, and ought to be allowed and given the opportunity to figure out what that is. What would society be like if we did that?
Bridgitte, I completely agree. My glass-half-full take on this is that, because we're missing so much, we only have to get a little better at helping (or allowing) people to find better fit to have a significant impact. But in general I agree with you. The Nobel laureate economist Ted Schultz once criticized his fields' study of education by saying that researchers had studied the returns to higher education in terms of skills learned, but not in terms of giving people a chance to try things so that they learn about themselves and improve their match quality — or degree of fit between who they are and what they do. My read of subsequent research on that issue is that the return of higher education in terms of helping people find better match quality is often higher than to the returns on the actual stuff they learn. Of course, not everyone gets higher education, and I think the "sampling" aspect of higher ed is under threat, unfortunately.
Even when you do find what you are good at, it is often too late for our youth-obsessed culture. I grew up in a council estate in Scotland (a housing project for American readers) in poverty and I had a meandering road to get to where I am now, feeling like I am just hitting my stride. However, I am doing so at nearly 50 years old, the point at which our culture says you should be at "your peak" (I feel very much in the foothills!).
I loved this story and related to it in a lot of ways. Self-learning is what gets most of us through art school, not that there weren't some amazing professors, but some of those open-ended exploratory classes, were a bit of a nightmare. Something about having time to sit and stew in your own curiosity can create amazing results if you learn to teach yourself.
Zach, beautiful phrase here: "having time to sit and stew in your own curiosity." I think striking that balance of some structure but not too much — generative challenges or experiments, really — is a real art of teaching, including self-teaching!
Amazing read! Would you say that the lack of a structured learning environment is what made the difference in Kaphar's interest in it? Thinking about school, it's very much a structured and rigid learning system, one that he did not thrive in, whereas when let loose with minimal guidance, he found the grit to learn on his own.
Sorin, that's a great question! I was just on a flight reading part of an academic book that sort of reviewed cognitive psychology work on creativity, and the author points out this apparent "sweet spot" of structure for learning, where none at all may not lead to useful experimentation, but too much leads even very skilled practitioners to rigidity. My guess is that the sort of modestly structured environment he eventually found, where his learning wasn't micromanaged, but where he was surrounded by people who knew things he didn't, was probably a fortuitous balance. ...I understand some of reasons we have rigid learning structures, but I also wonder how many "hidden talents" might emerge if the pathways were more diverse. I'm rambling, but clearly, as you noticed, he had a lot to give, but was a disaster in the rigid system.
P.S. I'm right this moment reading an article about the Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek, and came across this: "...[he] received poor grades in every subject save biology, failing in Latin, Greek, and math. Nevertheless, in his early years he exhibited an intellectual trait that stayed with him for his entire life: he was a voracious reader with a broad range of interests, something of an autodidact. The rigid pedagogy of late imperial Austria didn't suit his talents."
Thank you for the excerpt! Learning pathways are always fascinating to explore. I recall barely passing chemistry in my first year of middle-school, took a summer class where I had a wonderful tutor who ran with me through the whole year's worth of material in 2 months; I went on to get straight A's for the next 5 years in Chemistry. I lean towards neither extreme of teaching methods, I believe your statement holds true: "...structure for learning, where none at all may not lead to useful experimentation, but too much leads even very skilled practitioners to rigidity."
I also see this in the learning curve of first time founders, where they can be told how to build a company or how to conduct customer interviews a million times over to no avail. The best ones ingest as much information as they can, go out and do it for themselves, make painfully obvious mistakes, derive their own learnings, and then come back with questions. If there's too much rigidity in the workshops, and we tell them exactly how to do something, it leads them to come back with no results and blame the workshop itself. Almost as if the lack of freedom to learn for themselves (and find the grit to do it) leads to them never entering a learning mindset in the first place, making the process a transactional one.
Ironically I'm writing this comment as I'm on a train to deliver a workshop to first time founders. Something to keep in mind as I refine the slides.
what a story!! ❤️❤️
So glad you liked it, Nicole, and thank you for the hearts;)
Thank you for sharing this, David! Kaphar’s Jerome project was profoundly affecting and the crossing point between you delighted me.
He's a brilliant guy, and I feel lucky to have crossed paths with him! Thanks so much for reading, Jeff.
Thank you for a wonderful uplifting message especially welcome this Thanksgiving week. I am thinking that traction comes with each success that then makes for more traction- and the converse- that not feeling successful leads to a downward spiral. He seems to find his own inner traction as well . And I imagine having a love cheering you on helps keep the forward momentum dynamic going. Finding an environment that helps you thrive is what we can all be grateful for this Thanksgiving.
Hi Margit! Beautifully said, as always.
Nice piece. It also seemed Kaphar managed to stay attuned to his inner voice despite lacking external validation or success early on. His capacity to stay rooted in his own desires (and not conform) produced unique and valuable work.
Absolutely, Eoin. Great observation, and obviously something always easier said than done.
Lovely story. Thanks for sharing, David.
I know I quoted Elizabeth Gilbert’s Big Magic on your last post, but it feels appropriate once again. She touches on “genius,” how the Greeks and Romans thought about it, which I find more helpful:
“The Greeks and the Romans both believed in the idea of an external daemon of creativity—a sort of house elf, if you will, who lived within the walls of your home and who sometimes aided you in your labors. The Romans had a specific term for that helpful house elf. They called it your genius—your guardian deity, the conduit of your inspiration. Which is to say, the Romans didn’t believe that an exceptionally gifted person was a genius; they believed that an exceptionally gifted person had a genius.”
Steve, I love these, please keep them coming when it strikes you! ...and, on a funny note, this reminded me of a funny line in my favorite play, The Pillowman. It comes in a part when the main character (a writer), is talking about a short story he wrote in which Shakespeare keeps captive some sort of small creature who he forces to write plays for him. The writer jokes something like, "well, he didn't write all those plays himself." It's a funny moment in a very dark play, but I think contains a grain of truth from the writer perspective.
Such an inspiring story, David. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks for the kind words, Stella. So glad you enjoyed!