Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
11–20 of 477 posts
Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#12 SMPY researchers say that even modest interventions—for example, access to challenging material such as college-level Advanced Placement courses—have a demonstrable effect. Among students with high ability, those who were given a richer density of advanced precollegiate educational opportunities in STEM went on to publish more academic papers, earn more patents and pursue higher-level careers than their equally smart peers who didn't have these opportunities.
Despite SMPY's many insights, researchers still have an incomplete picture of giftedness and achievement. “We don't know why, even at the high end, some people will do well and others won't,” says Douglas Detterman, a psychologist who studies cognitive ability at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “Intelligence won't account for all the differences between people; motivation, personality factors, how hard you work and other things are important.”Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#13ask him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#14Actually the claim is the other way around - that the people at the top got there through focused effort of the right kind.
Finding "gifted" children does not contradict this. Nobody pops out of the womb a math genius.
Gifted children are "gifted" with a laser focus on the unusual things that they find fun - math, music, what-have-you. They spend countless hours playing with numbers or with music, while little Johnny is playing with a ball.
I was one of these kids, I played with geometric objects, with music, etc. Sure I was weird sometimes. I didn't have anybody to share my interests with.
Anyway, point is, when people point to "gifted" talent, this is just another cop-out. They don't have an explanation. They are appealing to everybody's shared sense of magical outcomes.
But it boils down to the hours that kids put into their interests.
Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#15Personally, I like it. Clearly SMPY recruits have changed the world for the better.
Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#16Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#17> Pioneering mathematicians Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng were one-percenters, as were Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and musician Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga), who all passed through the Hopkins centre. Didn't expect Lady Gaga to be listed although it confirms one of my pet theories. It has long been my opinion that success in STEM fields correlates with general high intelligence which will…
Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#18> “A high test score tells you only that a person has high ability and is a good match for that particular test at that point in time,” says Matthews. If Matthews is correct that scores are transient, then we'd expect test scores to have little to no predictive ability. In other words, we'd expect the rate of career achievement among high test takers to be approximately equal to the rate of achievement among low test…
Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
#19People who fetishize things are the source of all things bad in the world.