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
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.
- (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
Can you explain why you think that way? Long covid gives people varying degrees of brainfog and debilitation ranging from simple forgetfulness all the way to being bed bound and needing round the clock care. It seems quite apt to me
The situations are almost entirely unrelated. COVID is a virus that unintentionally spread and in rare cases causes an ongoing reduction in capacity from one's baseline. FfA has a surgical technique which is applied to single person to raise them above their baseline, and then gradually they fall back to their pre-exisitng baseline. Seems like OP was using a tenuous parallel to score some cheap political or perhaps conspiratorial point.
I think the OP is mostly there but didn't stick the landing. I use FfA comparatively to describe a cognitive a-b-a trip. But re-titling the story - that might associate the underlying story details as well.
Nuance needs some exp (for some of us, lots). Hopefully we're patient.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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)
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).
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.
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).
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.
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. :)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> “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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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...
271 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 271 ms ] threadWith lifespans increasing, many of us will have Charlie's experience.
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.
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.
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.
The only reason some people escape this fate is that they die too young.
of every person
(Pedantically, that decline may take less than 15 seconds.)
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!
What does this mean? I doubt it stands for the political acronym that first comes to my mind.
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.
Nuance needs some exp (for some of us, lots). Hopefully we're patient.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31875692
"Flowers for Algernon" is a fine, memorable title that makes sense in the context of what the story is about.
Edit: Note -- I confused Ringworld with Discworld, as pointed out by rowyourboat below.
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?
- 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:/...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-023-00387-0
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038528/
Edited for clarity
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.
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.
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.
Life is layers and layers of fragile.
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. :)
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.
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.
Later in life, most of these gifted kids were total disappointments. I know I am.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
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.
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 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.]
The Dunning Kruger effect effect, eh?
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)
I'll see myself out.
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.
The exact percentage of people getting it wrong was plucked out of the air, but that's not the important part of his comment.
How sublimely apropos!
If I understood risk, consistent effort, and emotions better, I would have retired in my mid twenties.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All repent and praise the Mouse!
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.
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.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7BRQ9neSrw
[1] https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?40835
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakenings
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".
[1[]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charly_(1968_film)
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.
Maybe referring to the author responding too.
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.
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.
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
Hint to artists: put up a bitcoin receiving address on your portfolio (it'd make it a bunch easier).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcWihdna3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIg8Mo_EyDw
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...