Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 477 posts

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#51

Post by vehementi »

corysama wrote: post #23

I skimmed the article pretty quickly because I was looking for the answer posed by the title and rightly expecting 90% background and filler stories. I didn't find much in the way of answers... Let me know if I missed anything. Why some kids excel greatly beyond most others is still pretty mysterious. Don't call them gifted. High school is not a great social environment for introverts to learn in. Just give them acce…

> I skimmed the article pretty quickly because I was looking for the answer posed by the title and rightly expecting 90% background and filler stories

Me too, hate this type of article, couldn't find it either.

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#52

Post by hyperpape »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #43
trendia wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were five different features that they plotted vs. SAT score [1]. All five rely heavily on intelligence: 1. any doctorate 2. STEM publications 3. STEM doctorates 4. Patents 5. Income in the 95th percentile A person in Q4 was 60% more likely than a person in Q3 to earn income in the 95th percentile. I'd say that's pretty significant. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/Child_...

I believe that is only evidence of bias towards high score holders, which we already know exists. Minor issue: why does that figures' caption lead with a quip about the top 1%, but only present data for quartiles?

I'm not sure what those Q1-Q4 numbers are, but I don't think they are quartiles. I went to a TIP ceremony for kids who'd scored well on the SATs in 7th grade. There were a few hundred kids there (I think something like 1000 got you there?), a few dozen with 1200 something, and one kid up on stage with a 1400.

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#53

Post by toast0 »

timwaagh wrote: post #20

why is it bad to label somebody ungifted? if i had known before i did not have what it takes to become a good mathematician, i would perhaps not have pursued that. maybe i would have saved myself a lot of trouble.

The problem with labels is "gifted" vs "ungifted" is very often interpreted as "smart" vs "stupid"

Another problem is that there's a spectrum of ability/interest being turned into a binary. For those near the threshold of the criteria, this is especially problematic.

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#54

Post by trendia »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #43
trendia wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were five different features that they plotted vs. SAT score [1]. All five rely heavily on intelligence: 1. any doctorate 2. STEM publications 3. STEM doctorates 4. Patents 5. Income in the 95th percentile A person in Q4 was 60% more likely than a person in Q3 to earn income in the 95th percentile. I'd say that's pretty significant. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/Child_...

I believe that is only evidence of bias towards high score holders, which we already know exists. Minor issue: why does that figures' caption lead with a quip about the top 1%, but only present data for quartiles?

IQ measured while young predicts income later as an entrepreneur.

http://imgur.com/a/huYKk

http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#55

Post by iopq »

Jimmy wrote: post #11

I get quite depressed when I read articles like this. I'm resentful of the fact that my early academic performance was merely above average, rather than exceptional. Some days I feel confident in my abilities and my plans for the future; other days, I fear that it's already too late for me to accomplish anything of note.

My academic performance was average, but I did place first in a math Olympiad in my school. That said, I was competing with kids that didn't know algebra and I got basically every question right.

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#56

Post by saint_fiasco »

betenoire wrote: post #8

But are they happy?

Apparently yes. Some people are just more privileged than others.

Insisting that rich people must feel more existential dread than poor people (money can't buy happiness!) and smart people must be more sad than stupid people (ignorance is bliss!) is a classic symptom of just-world fallacy.

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#57

Post by iopq »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #47
inputcoffee wrote: post #21

Consider this: Their gift is the ability to work hard. They are able to work hard because they find it fun. Q: We have all felt the "fun" of learning math (for instance), so how do we share that with others?

Maybe it's impossible. Just like you can't force a gay man to be more interested in women and you can't force an asocial nerd to enjoy loud parties, you just can't force most people to enjoy math. EDIT: changed an example to be more specific and precise.

I'm an introverted nerd and I enjoy socialization. This is a bad example.

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#58

Post by lfx »

goshx wrote: post #42
ekianjo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it boils down to the hours that kids put into their interests. So you believe in the 10 000 hours empirical rule based on "outliers" with very little evidence to support it?

Gladwell used someone else's studies and came up with the 10k hours. I recommend you read the original authors' book: Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, from Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool. They say the 10k rule doesn't exist and explain what they meant, but it does indeed boil down to "deliberate practice".

And 10k hours rule is just catchy name. Almost only purpose is just to be catchy! This[1] episode of freakonomics explains it well.

[1] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/peak/

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#59

Post by iopq »

Jimmy wrote: post #25
timwaagh wrote: post #20

why is it bad to label somebody ungifted? if i had known before i did not have what it takes to become a good mathematician, i would perhaps not have pursued that. maybe i would have saved myself a lot of trouble.

There are many ungifted people who make their livings as mathematicians. Have you already abandoned math? If you haven't given up yet, there are likely things you can do to improve your chances of success.

> There are many ungifted people who make their livings as mathematicians

They're still well above average IQ.

Re: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children

#60

Post by ralusek »

Isamu wrote: post #14

> Such results contradict long-established ideas suggesting that expert performance is built mainly through practice—that anyone can get to the top with enough focused effort of the right kind. Actually 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…

Why is everybody so binary about this? Are we really suggesting that some individuals are not capable of intellectual tasks at a greater capacity, or a greater speed than others?

If you understand that a human being has a higher cognitive function than a sea slug, a wasp, a mouse, a dog, a dolphin, an ape, by our genetics alone, then you have to accept that there is a degree of genetic variance between individual humans. It's not like the moment we all qualify as the same species all genetic variance in every regard goes away. Some people are taller than others, some people are better at abstract thought, some people are better at linear calculation.

Of course nurturing these talents is incredibly important, nobody is denying that. But the more studies that come out, the more it seems to suggest that the ability to produce exceptional results with the nurturing of specific practices is hugely magnified by genetic predisposition.

Post reply on HN