Homeschooling + Polyphasic sleep (or modafinil)

Pre-College Issues High School Life
1

<p>LOTS OF SPARE TIME TO STUDY.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep&lt;/a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>To think of it, it would be the perfect educational opportunity for the first 18 years of one's life.</p>

<p>And yes, early education does matter. Why? Because fluid intelligence declines with age:
<a href="http://home.twcny.rr.com/hiemstra/tlchap2.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://home.twcny.rr.com/hiemstra/tlchap2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It peaks in the early 20s, and then declines. For those too lazy to google...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Moreover, as evidenced in the book "Scientific Genius" (Dean Simonton), we see that the vast majority of novel contributions to theoretical physics/math were made by individuals before the age of 30, making it more important for a student to learn more before age 30.</p>

<p>And what's keeping people from doing this? Popular attitudes towards schooling + resistance to try out the new.</p>

<p>But this could turn a person into a Gauss. Especially in this day and age - when people need to learn more and more in order to get to the top of the research. By the time they actually learn enough physics/math under the traditional route, then, as Eugene Wigner (a Nobel laureate in physics) said...</p>

<p>"Physics is becoming so unbelievably complex that it is taking longer and longer to train a physicist. It is taking so long, in fact, to train a physicist to the place where he understands the nature of physical problems that he is already too old to solve them".</p>

<p>But we can make it possible for a physicist to be trained before he grows too old - by means of identifying a potentially gifted and talent child, and homeschooling him (and showing him the benefits of polyphasic sleep). Of course, the student must desire learning above all else first. But there is nothing to keep a student from being homeschooled or doing polyphasic sleep if he desires to do so.</p>

<p>Polyphasic sleep, of course, requires large amounts of willpower. There's an alternative to that - drugs like modafinil and CX717, that have been repeatedly demonstrated to have very mild side effects. Moreover, they reduce the amount of sleep that one needs (just as polyphasic sleep does). No need for catch-up sleep.</p>

2

<p>Studying isn't what life is all about. If my parents would put me into study room with 15 minutes of sleep every four hours until I was 18 I would:
a) go crazy and kill my parents
b) go crazy and run away, to destroy the whole world</p>

<p>Oh yes, about modafinil. Why not just outright create cyborgs that would blow ideas and scientific theses.</p>

<p>The path<em>to</em>success<em>while</em>being<em>a</em>screw<em>of</em>a<em>huge</em>system ideals of western society frighten me. People, you do not to specialize in being a nerd, a jock, or some sort of goth kid: you can be yourself with your own unique ****ing personality!</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
Studying isn't what life is all about. If my parents would put me into study room with 15 minutes of sleep every four hours until I was 18 I would:
a) go crazy and kill my parents
b) go crazy and run away, to destroy the whole world</p>

<p>Oh yes, about modafinil. Why not just outright create cyborgs that would blow ideas and scientific theses.</p>

<p>The path<em>to</em>success<em>while</em>being<em>a</em>screw<em>of</em>a<em>huge</em>syst em ideals of western society frighten me. People, you do not to specialize in being a nerd, a jock, or some sort of goth kid: you can be yourself with your own unique ****ing personality!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not just studying. Those who have such options have the option to even have more fun/more of a social life (yes, as numerous homeschoolers attest, a social life is possible without school) when they are freed from time constraints, such as those imposed by school or non-REM sleep. And to still go far, far, far ahead of the mainstream.</p>

<p>(moreover, polyphasic sleep is much easier for a homeschooled student).</p>

<p>It's all about making more time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh yes, about modafinil. Why not just outright create cyborgs that would blow ideas and scientific theses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It isn't possible yet. We don't know if cyborgs will ever have the flexibility of the human brain.</p>

<p>
[quote]
People, you do not to specialize in being a nerd, a jock, or some sort of goth kid: you can be yourself with your own unique ****ing personality!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Public schools are often a bigger constraint. People start to socialize in their peer groups, and adopt mannerisms and ideas within such peer groups. Source: The Nurture Assumption (Judith Rich Harris)</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Besides, my original topic post was about this: a person with such arrangements as I have described above (such arrangements are quite possible) can be the next person who learns enough math to substantially contribute to the ouevre before his fluid intelligence starts to decline. Is it possible? Verily. Take someone who really likes math at an early age, and who shows early capability.</p>

<p>I'm merely talking about minimizing the amount of wasted time (either through school or through non-REM sleep). Many students could elect to take such an approach, and of them, a small minority may have the potential to actually enter math/science fields at very young ages (and consequently have many years where their fluid intelligence is at its peak). That is, if more parents actually start to doubt the utility of public schooling and the purpose of "having to sleep 8+ continuous hours a night."</p>

<p>With polyphasic sleep (Uberman schedule especially), you can drastically reduce the number of hours you need to sleep. A number of scientists and engineers have been known to do this. If you doubt the validity of such accounts, then you probably should doubt the validity of personal biographies per se.</p>

4

<p>I go on little sleep. There are many in academia who are already doing what you say we should do. Except live off of drugs.. are you seriously advocating Modafinil as sustenance equal to water and oxygen.. ? As something we all pop in our OJ every morning? Are you serious?</p>

5

<p>Alright. What could the consequences of not getting 15 minutes sleep during some four hour cycles be?</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
I go on little sleep. There are many in academia who are already doing what you say we should do. Except live off of drugs.. are you seriously advocating Modafinil as sustenance equal to water and oxygen.. ? As something we all pop in our OJ every morning? Are you serious?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Paul Erdos did amphetamines, which are far more dangerous than modafinil.</p>

<p>Speaking of modafinil, it's already used in narcoleptics, and the side effects of the drug are very mild. We don't know of the extreme long-term consequences, but I doubt that they will be particularly significant. One problem is insulin resistance from lack of sleep (this requires some monitoring of blood sugar levels).</p>

<p>The more pressing concern, of course, is if it will have much of a long-term impact on children brains. Nonetheless, massive numbers of children are already being dosed on amphetamines, and most of us realize that those are important for them to succeed at school (though it may be better if they had the option to pursue educational opportunities commensurate with their learning styles).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Alright. What could the consequences of not getting 15 minutes sleep during some four hour cycles be?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Umm, your question is a bit confusing. Are you talking of the consequences of "not doing polyphasic", or the consequences of "doing polyphasic?"</p>

7

<p>Wow, you're serious.</p>

<p>Yeah, I hear Coca-Cola has a new line of soft drinks out that include Modafinil. It's called Moda-Cola (all the youngsters call it "Mode" for short -- how cute!), and the can says you can go 24 hours without peeling your eyes off of the computer screen. Now we can all creep around the night like the nocturnal rats I always knew we were. Cheers!</p>

<p>Edit:
Please read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.</p>

8

<p>lulz, well, this is a free society, since I'm advocating homeschooling and the freedom for people to pursue what they want to pursue (and to see into cognitive biases that make them innately predisposed against anything new). ^_^ So most won't become the next Gauss, but perhaps a couple out of such individuals might. Heck, modafinil for computer games wouldn't be so bad. :p</p>

<p>Nanotechnology looks so awesome. Maybe it might reverse the decline in cognitive functioning with aging. But we can't tell yet.</p>

<p>another interesting take on fluid intelligence;
<a href="http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

9

<p>InquilineKea:</p>

<p>There's a fatal flaw in your analysis of fluid intelligence. It does decline with age, but this may very well have to do with the fact that most people stop using fluid intelligence after a certain age, because it doesn't need to be used as much. The majority of inventors made their inventions after the age of 40, so I don't really think that fluid intelligence really makes a decline if you still continue to make use of it. (Then again, I'm known for my bold hypotheses.)</p>

<p>I am, of course, pro-polyphasic sleep, as I use it myself.</p>

10

<p>The problem with this though, is that the brain actually does start to degrade after age 30. So the decline of fluid intelligence with age is actually associated with neurological findings.</p>

<p>The other thing is that a lot of Nobel laureates haven't really been using their brains until age 18 - and then they really start to shine. The reason: they've been able to cruise through their grade school courses, but their fluid intelligence still increases despite that. Many professors are at the peak of their productive years after age 30 (I addressed this concern to someone else, who said that professors are most prolific (in journal writing) at age 35-40 or so). Nonetheless, this still often doesn't account for major discoveries.</p>

<p>The question is - is the decline of fluid intelligence (which has been independently derived from the paranoia in physics/math fields over the decline of fluid intelligence) coincidental to that paranoia? Or is the paranoia actually justified?</p>

11

<p>InquilineKea, do you sleep in a polyphasic manner? If so, any personal feedback is greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Also, recommending any drug that is not necessary is never a good idea-- you can't justify it by saying Erdos used unnecessary drugs, so you can too.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
The problem with this though, is that the brain actually does start to degrade after age 30. So the decline of fluid intelligence with age is actually associated with neurological findings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm rather skeptical of this. Just because the brain starts degrading doesn't mean fluid intelligence declines. By such logic, you could also say that crystalline intelligence declines, which is false. Link?</p>

13

<p>Okay, so I think that googles into "brain aging + fluid intelligence" would be helpful. I'll do that now.</p>

<p>There are several stages in brain aging, so to speak. The first stages actually start as the brain is developing. There is a critical period for language development - and if people learn a language after that particular age/period, they will never become non-accented speakers in such a language. Of course, this says nothing about openness or fluid intelligence. </p>

<p>The brain pretty much stops growing in the teenage years. It starts to shrink after age 20. That alone says nothing, of course. Just saying that the "brain starts to degrade" is faulty logic - one has to look into specifics.</p>

<p>The other concern is that the protective measures against Alzheimers only apply to how much you've developed your brain up to age 30. After that age, brain exercises exert no more neuroprotective factor. I have to look up the link citing that again though. Found it: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2165040/pagenum/2/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.slate.com/id/2165040/pagenum/2/&lt;/a> (slate isn't the best source, but whenever it points out skepticism towards some actions that people are taking - that skepticism is often well-taken)</p>

<p>Crystalline intelligence should logically decline as already-formed synapses start to degrade, whereas fluid intelligence should logically decline as synapses start to form slower and slower (that should be the type of research I should take my google into next). </p>

<p>Let's see...
<a href="http://intelligencetesting.blogspot.com/2006/12/age-decline-in-reasoning-speed-and.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://intelligencetesting.blogspot.com/2006/12/age-decline-in-reasoning-speed-and.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>==
The other concern is more of a logical one. Scientists tend to be very inquisitive types through life. Do you think that their curiosities (or passions for intensive mental training) decline after a particular age? It's hard to say. It's true that motivation often declines after a particular age. One scientist invoked the hypothesis that males are particularly motivated to grab accomplishments early on due to the prospect of attracting mates (I'm dubious of the hypothesis, but it's an alternative possible explanation, which cannot be ruled out yet).</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Okay, so...</p>

<p>
[quote]
“Fluid intelligence (also called "native mental ability") is the
information processing system. It refers to the ability to think and
reason. It includes the speed with which information can be analyzed,
and also includes attention and memory capacity."

[/quote]

<a href="http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=203714%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=203714&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>==
Again, I realize that the sources are not particularly reliable. I'll have to look more into it. They cite reliable sources and there seems to be no particular incentive for them to cite biased sources (as in, they don't seem to be advertising any anti-brain aging products).</p>

<p>Some personality styles are more likely to decline with fluid intelligence than other personality styles. Yet, the personality style of the scientist/mathematician (open, inquisitive, willingness to learn anything that would help with solving problems) is the one that is the least likely to decline with fluid intelligence. However, even scientists differ in that trait, some of them being better than others.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Now, one's personality and learning style most certainly cannot change one's capacity to learn/remember/be attentive in a particular task/etc. This is partially counterbalanced by a person's ability to learn (what one psychologist calls "learnable intelligence) what strategies are best used with one's learning style (better strategies allow one to learn more and to apply that knowledge with more accuracy). However, the person should eventually learn which strategies are best used with one's learning style (and cannot learn any more beyond a certain point). After that, there is only one direction, and that direction is in that of decline.</p>

<p>Fluid intelligence deals with measures on IQ tests that are culturally independent. There are some interesting correlations (though not strong ones - reaction time has a 0.5 correlation with IQ, we still don't appreciate the full significance of that correlation). </p>

<p>So what is the issue then? The making of novel discoveries. There are several ways to make novel discoveries. (1) is in the synthesis of vast amounts of knowledge (dependent on crystallized intelligence). (2) is the "ingenious" step of making the right logical leap in a theoretical physics/math problem. The question is, does (2) decline with age? One has to look at the empirical evidence of that. Dean Simonton (1988) has found some empirical evidence for that trait in his book "Scientific Genius." (which is consistent with the paranoia of mathematicians/physicists). Novel discoveries in the social sciences, on the other hand, which are dependent on synthesizing vast amounts of knowledge, depend more on crystallized intelligence. As for the neurological mechanisms, while the brain does decline after age 30, we still do not appreciate the full significance of its decline as of yet. As you pointed out, that statement alone can apply to crystallized intelligence. It can only be applied to fluid intelligence as distinct from crystallized intelligence once we figure out which neuromechanisms decline faster than others after age 30.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
InquilineKea, do you sleep in a polyphasic manner? If so, any personal feedback is greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Also, recommending any drug that is not necessary is never a good idea-- you can't justify it by saying Erdos used unnecessary drugs, so you can too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, unfortunately I don't have the flexible schedule required for polyphasic sleep. My parents also aren't particularly liberal. Which is why I said that this requires a change in parental attitudes first. Only homeschoolers can have the schedule necessary for polyphasic sleep. </p>

<p>Recommending unnecessary drugs is "never a good idea." A good idea towards what? Your conceptions of "success?" Well, what if the person has a different definition of "success" than yours? One that is contingent on learning as much as possible? In that, drugs can actually aid such a definition of success. Many find much fulfillment in learning.</p>

<p>===</p>

<p>However, I do believe that crystallized intelligence is an important part of making scientific/mathematical discoveries, especially in this day and age (where discoveries are based on an increasing foundation of knowledge). This day and age is also one where people often must develop a wide basis of knowledge in several fields of math/physics, in order for one to make a reliable choice on which branch of physics/math to go into. In that, one must accumulate more of it before one reaches age 30 (and that crystallized intelligence must come from less wasted time in one's youth, either from public schooling or non-REM sleep).</p>

<p>As the way psychology is going right now - it seems to be making the psychometrical discoveries first, and then the neurobiological ones. So we'll have to isolate the neurobiological traits responsible for the changes in psychometrical traits and attributes.</p>

<p>We may also have to isolate the cognitive biases responsible with age (that may prevent scientists from making novel discoveries after a particular age) from those that are not responsible from age. Even scientists are often susceptible of narrow-minded thinking and cognitive biases. But then are all such scientists susceptible to them?</p>

<p>Teenagers peak in:
<a href="http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070302-000002&page=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070302-000002&page=2&lt;/a>
(It's an interview with Robert Epstein, who is a famous and trustable researcher in psychology)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Other long-standing data show that teens are at least as competent as adults. IQ is a quotient that indicates where you stand relative to other people your age; that stays stable. But raw scores of intelligence peak around age 14-15 and shrink thereafter. Scores on virtually all tests of memory peak between ages 13 and 15. Perceptual abilities all peak at that age. Brain size peaks at 14. Incidental memory—what you remember by accident, and not due to mnemonics—is remarkably good in early to mid teens and practically nonexistent by the '50s and '60s.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>holy crap. We decline earlier than I originally thought. </p>

<p>==</p>

<p>But those indicators of memory are totally independent of one's intellectual curiosity. That being said, we must establish a causal connection between those and the raw intelligence responsible for Nobel prizes. The question is - has that causal connection been established yet? There's an interesting new field called the "Psychology of Science". Gregory J. Feist and Dean Simonton have interesting books in that field. I'll have to probe into them further.</p>

<p>More from Epstein:
<a href="http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=C343AE64-E7F2-99DF-3D11435B380C1007%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=C343AE64-E7F2-99DF-3D11435B380C1007&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Adolescence-Rediscovering-Adult/dp/188495670X%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Adolescence-Rediscovering-Adult/dp/188495670X&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

15

<p>Myth of the Teen Brain (full article):
<a href="http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein%20-%20THE%20MYTH%20OF%20THE%20TEEN%20BRAIN%20-%20Scientific%20American%20Mind%20-%204-8-07.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein%20-%20THE%20MYTH%20OF%20THE%20TEEN%20BRAIN%20-%20Scientific%20American%20Mind%20-%204-8-07.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(his website, so he freely distributes it as he wants to)</p>

<p>Types of memory that decline with aging:
<a href="http://www.biologyofhumanaging.com/notes6.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.biologyofhumanaging.com/notes6.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>===</p>

<p>You can’t be thoughtful without being aware. Part of the definition of being aware is of realizing the significance of the stimuli. Thoughtfulness is a pre-requisite for the person to realize the significance of the stimuli.</p>

<p>Thus, the first step to problem-solving in any field is to be aware of the problem. To be aware of similar problems, to take note of possible connections between the problem and all of the givens, to know the importance of each of the givens in the problem at hand. One of my problems in the past was that I was somewhat muddle-headed, in that I daydream a lot and am quite internally distractible. In that, I fail to observe all of the details of math/science problems and consequently stare at them for hours on end - without even being observant of all of the details of the problem.</p>

<p>It seems that I’m quite observant for non-math/science problems (and very observant of how individuals fit into a social framework), yet not particularly observant for math/science problems. To be observant is to analyze. For analysis requires that you bring in external laws of the world that allow you to make sense of the problem.</p>

<p>Herein was my main problem with the last. This is also why background knowledge helps with solving problems - and how observation relies on background knowledge + a skepticism when it comes to observation.</p>

<p>The aware individual is the one who notices the anomalies. An awareness combined with some creativity (involving thinking about all the possible solutions to the Kuhnian anomaly, as well as an efficient weeding out mechanism for all of the solutions that clearly fail), is the type of personality that wins the Nobel Prize. A good memory is key to awareness - for one must have a lot of background knowledge, and an ability to quickly combine that background knowledge with active memory - before the active memory fades away.</p>

<p>It seems that the intelligent people are adept at observing. They are also adept at drawing the correct conclusion from less information (whereas machines and the less intelligent must need more information - often in the form of hints - to arrive at the correct conclusion). Hints are especially interesting. Each hint brings a step that the unintelligent person may not deduce/observe. From that point on, the problem is more straightforward (in that the person is then able to draw the correct conclusion).</p>

<p>Sometimes, hints bring the observer some steps closer to solving the problem. And yes, sometimes hints involve the restatement of the assumptions needed to solve the problem - as well as what the individual assumptions entail (yes, some people are so lazy that they don’t even list what the individual assumptions entail).</p>

<p>====</p>

<p>Awareness => memory => memory access and connections between nodes in one's memory (search algorithms your brain uses to distinguish between information that is relevant/irrelevant from the problem) => creativity.</p>

<p>It may also be that incidental memory is based upon parallel processing. The brain that is capable of parallel processing may be the one that is most likely to be creative. But yet, females are better multi-taskers than males. This does not mean that they are not more creative. So we'll have to isolate which features of parallel processing are really responsible for scientific creativity from those features that are not.</p>

16

<p>It felt depressing just to stay at home through spring break studying for APs. If I had to spend 18 years doing nothing but studying, then I will probably turn into a serial killer or commit suicide at the first chance I get.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
It felt depressing just to stay at home through spring break studying for APs. If I had to spend 18 years doing nothing but studying, then I will probably turn into a serial killer or commit suicide at the first chance I get.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Maybe you'd turn out different if you weren't so socialized into the peer groups that you were socialized into. Apparently, you label yourself as "asian", implying that you identify with some groups that you have socialized yourself into.</p>

<p>Again, this is where homeschooling has the advantage. Mass public education didn't even come until the late 1800s.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>On a side note, I wonder how this logic would apply to engineers (as opposed to scientists and mathematicians). Since engineers are the ones doing nanotechnology and neural implants, both of which have the potential to enhance neural processing.</p>

<p>Hmm, I'll have to post this at <a href="http://www.imminst.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.imminst.org&lt;/a>. Well crap, some of the people there are elitists</p>

18

<p>"Please read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley."
Amen to that.</p>

<p>"Maybe you'd turn out different if you weren't so socialized into the peer groups that you were socialized into."
It's really ignorant to suggest that 1.) AznN3rd just thinks the way that he does because it is the societal norm and that 2.) AznN3rd WAS socialized into his peer group by some 'mysterious social force' (note the passive form), and didn't consciously choose his path himself. If, from a very young age, one was (essentially) confined to his/her room, (essentially) forced to adapt to polyphasic sleep, and (essentially) compelled to study all day, that person would simply be socialized into a -different- social group and a -different- means of thinking. In fact, I think that that person would have less freedom in thinking; at least, in the example of someone in AznN3rd's situation, that person can adapt in a relatively open society (it is up to him/her whether or not he/she studies a lot and takes advantage of his/her 'fluid intelligence....' or whether he/she simply devotes him/herself to other activities). In your example, the child (assuming his/her "training" begins at a rather young age) will lack the opportunity to build up his or her own perceptions of the world, or choose his or her own goals and path. I personally think that those like AznN3rd and myself have far more free will than the children that you describe.</p>

19

<p>Just because a person follows orders on the behalf of others (aka peers) doesn't mean that he has the freedom to "build up his or her own perceptions of the world, or choose his or her own goals and path". As "The Nurture Assumption" so tellingly demonstrates, people (through a fault of their own brain development) are very gullible and easily fall into the social norms of their peers. It may be better for them to develop their paths independently by choosing what they want to do.</p>

<p>Sure, peer influence is not physical coercion by any means. Nonetheless, peer influence is psychological coercion. The peers don't have to even attempt to coerce the person into their norms. It's a built-in feature of the psychology of most young human beings.</p>

<p>Perhaps one can expose them to the wonders of polyphasic sleep by telling them what it's all about. Some will choose to do it, some will not choose to do it. Some of those who choose not to do it may be attracted by modafinil (hence why I made the argument about it). Modafinil is far less harmful/potent than the amphetamines are, and most of us are fine with letting other children take amphetamines to succeed in school (but this tends to constrain their imaginations).</p>

<p>In order for one to "build up his or her own perceptions of the world, or choose his or her own goals and path", perhaps it is best for one not to become overly socialized to a particular peer group in school. Perhaps it is more important for one to develop exposure to others in society, but not through the mechanisms of school. Many homeschoolers are reasonably socially adept.</p>

<p>Again, most people who choose such a path are not going to voluntarily stay in their rooms and study all day. But out of all of the people who choose such a path, perhaps a few of them will (like Sophie Germain) voluntarily stay in their rooms and study all day, and be fine with it. Few people will choose such a pursuit.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>My hypothesis merely contained the words "maybe". Again, AznN3rd may be right even if he were not socialized in the peer groups that he grew up with.</p>

<p>Most people in an open world wouldn't choose such a path. Nonetheless, variance in personality is 50% genetic, and 50% attributable to other factors (NOT PARENTS). Usually, those other factors are the social group. However, the social group of the child can be modified. Parents do keep their children away from social groups they view as undesirable. In fact, this is an overly American-centric view of the situation, since in most societies, students aren't socialized in groups consisting of similarly-aged peers.</p>

<p>My idea of the open world is one free of mandatory/compulsory public education. This is the one that tends to constrain the peer groups of students (and these peer groups are the same ones that teenagers often gain bad influences from, as Epstein says).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.learninfreedom.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.learninfreedom.org&lt;/a> has excellent arguments as to "homeschooling <=> free society". </p>

<p>==
Incidentally, the ad above says "Try PROVIGIL FREE for 7 days"</p>

<p>I never knew CC had drug ads. :p</p>

<p>"Can PROVIGIL help you feel more awake and alert when you need to be?
Find out today! Ask your doctor if PROVIGIL is right for you. Try PROVIGIL free for 7 days!</p>

<p>You’ll also get a guide to Talking With Your Doctor and a version of the Epworth
Sleepiness Scale you can print out and take along on your doctor visit."</p>

20

<p>Wow. How do you people think up this stuff? Please, at least don't try to make it seem as if you are some sort of authority on the psychology and physiology of the human brain.</p>