But no, aside from being written after the Polgar sisters became famous (and so not representative of what he believed and planned beforehand)
Why do you believe that? I say it’s very likely that he believed something very much like what he says in the book. You could argue otherwise, but such an extraordinary claim calls for extraordinary evidence.
many eminent figures didn’t ‘specialize early’ or have important advisors as kids—Einstein being a case in point
And indeed, Einstein was not exceedingly smart. He was famously bad at math in school, did much of his early work in physics while employed as a patent examiner rather than in any academic position, and overall is better described as having been “in the right place at the right time” and having had a better idea of how science, especially physics should be done (that is, starting from plausible first principles and being ready to “bite the bullet” whenever a solid argument calls for that) compared to the likes of Lorentz and Poincare. That his work was so outstanding nonetheless says a lot more about what physics was like at the time, than it does about Einstein being somehow unique.
and all the datasets I am aware of from analyses like Murray’s Human Accomplishment suggest that per capita rates have fallen
Or the standards of “genius” have risen—as the Flynn effect suggests would happen.
the stuff about Esperanto making for a net savings in learning foreign languages is, IIRC, based on wishful thinking
Esperanto does have propaedeutic value due to its “toy language” character, especially when learned as a first foreign language. Indeed, far from being based in wishful thinking, this is about the only reason some people are still interested in Esperanto these days.
Let kids play? Homeschool them? Try to find a hobby early on (or just force them to learn the violin or piano...)? Use shorter 30 minute lessons? Play simplified versions first?
OK, how many people do that—and do it right? Like homeschooling in the most beneficial way (rather than teaching Bible study and young-earth creationism, as is all-too-common among “homeschoolers”!), or “letting kids play” while still taking the time to suggest kinds of play that might be especially good for the kid? And what’s wrong with “Use shorter 30 minute lessons”—I suppose you’ll start complaining about Mr. Pomodoro’s educational gimmicks too?
The Wikipedia articles “Propaedeutic value of Esperanto” and “Paderborn method” contain no criticism section. So either everyone agrees… or, more likely, people don’t care enough to publish objections and get them included in Wikipedia.
In such case there is usually some debate on the Talk page, which I don’t see here. At least it seems to me that on Wikipedia it is easier to censor information from the article than from the Talk page.
In his most productive years Einstein also lived together with his wife, who was smart enough to be the second woman to finish a full program of study at the Department of Mathematics and Physics at her university.
Why do you believe that? I say it’s very likely that he believed something very much like what he says in the book. You could argue otherwise, but such an extraordinary claim calls for extraordinary evidence.
And indeed, Einstein was not exceedingly smart. He was famously bad at math in school, did much of his early work in physics while employed as a patent examiner rather than in any academic position, and overall is better described as having been “in the right place at the right time” and having had a better idea of how science, especially physics should be done (that is, starting from plausible first principles and being ready to “bite the bullet” whenever a solid argument calls for that) compared to the likes of Lorentz and Poincare. That his work was so outstanding nonetheless says a lot more about what physics was like at the time, than it does about Einstein being somehow unique.
Or the standards of “genius” have risen—as the Flynn effect suggests would happen.
Esperanto does have propaedeutic value due to its “toy language” character, especially when learned as a first foreign language. Indeed, far from being based in wishful thinking, this is about the only reason some people are still interested in Esperanto these days.
OK, how many people do that—and do it right? Like homeschooling in the most beneficial way (rather than teaching Bible study and young-earth creationism, as is all-too-common among “homeschoolers”!), or “letting kids play” while still taking the time to suggest kinds of play that might be especially good for the kid? And what’s wrong with “Use shorter 30 minute lessons”—I suppose you’ll start complaining about Mr. Pomodoro’s educational gimmicks too?
This appears to be famous but false. See e.g. this or this or this or this.
The Wikipedia articles “Propaedeutic value of Esperanto” and “Paderborn method” contain no criticism section. So either everyone agrees… or, more likely, people don’t care enough to publish objections and get them included in Wikipedia.
Or whichever wikipedia admin is watching those pages won’t permit criticism.
In such case there is usually some debate on the Talk page, which I don’t see here. At least it seems to me that on Wikipedia it is easier to censor information from the article than from the Talk page.
In his most productive years Einstein also lived together with his wife, who was smart enough to be the second woman to finish a full program of study at the Department of Mathematics and Physics at her university.