Live data from Hacker News

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

scientificamerican.com

101–110 of 477 posts

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

#101
post #26
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.

Don't fret; everyone in our generation was raised to believe we were the 1 in 10,000. That simply can't be true 99.99% of the time. We're a generation that needs therapy to realize that a stable, six-figure job as a mid-level engineer at 30 isn't failure. Our expectations (some might say entitlement) were set so unreasonably high that most of us have no chance of meeting them.

Not only it's not a failure, it's the optimal happiness zone. It's enough that all the basic needs are met and there is a decent amount of freedom and low stress, and low enough to be able to keep a modest mentality.

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

#102
post #22
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…

Plenty of people spend hours drawing and still suck at it. My sister spent hours with a coloring book as a kid, and now has a growing IMDB page.* Sure, she went to a great art school, but not because of some single minded focus as she had ~10 AP classes and ended up High school Valedictorian. Even this did not take her full attention as she had a wide circle of friends, was very popular, and spent a lot of time on ma…

> My sister spent hours with a coloring book as a kid, and now has a growing IMDB page

Anyone in SAG can have an IMDB page. I know this because I have a child who has one after doing some trivial commercial and short film work...it really isn't a high bar, sorry.

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

#103
post #40
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people spend hours drawing and still suck at it. My sister spent hours with a coloring book as a kid, and now has a growing IMDB page.* Sure, she went to a great art school, but not because of some single minded focus as she had ~10 AP classes and ended up High school Valedictorian. Even this did not take her full attention as she had a wide circle of friends, was very popular, and spent a lot of time on ma…

> Plenty of people spend hours drawing and still suck at it. Definitely, but people don't get good at drawing without spending hours at it. You may be stuck at a local maximum, and it may take a good or different coach to get you around it, but generally you can always improve. But just trying harder is ineffective. You have to diagnose your problem, and how to fix it. Maybe you need a coach. I remember having to "in…

To clarify, can we reduce your point down to "natural talent doesn't exist?"

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

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bottom right of the figure says, "[s]tudents were split into quartiles".

I don't get why there is a reference to the top 1% in the caption though.

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

#105
This article is a bit of a mess regarding who it is talking about. It hops around and changes it's target constantly.

Sometimes it is talking about people in the .01%, AKA, 1 in 10000, so actual geniuses. Sometimes discussing people in the above average range, IQ of 120+, which is about 10% of the population (depending on your test), as well as people in gifted programs, which again, depending on your test is the top 1 or 2%.

These are three different cohorts with different needs. The top 10% need to be continually challenged so they can find satisfying careers. These are your class president types, people who really excel within the program, I think society serves these types well.

The top 1% are your gifted people (again, I know definitions vary), and they usually need something extra. Depends on the person, but it might be extra math or extra latin studies, or the ability to do side projects, but they generally flourish with something special.

The top .01% though? I have no idea. Most here on HN are in one of the other two groups (sorry, me too). The article seems to say that they just need to skip grades. But it's hard to tell if they are right since they are talking about a moving target.

(Edit: Adjusted the % for IQ of 120 based on this chart: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx)

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

#106
post #39
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't fret; everyone in our generation was raised to believe we were the 1 in 10,000. That simply can't be true 99.99% of the time. We're a generation that needs therapy to realize that a stable, six-figure job as a mid-level engineer at 30 isn't failure. Our expectations (some might say entitlement) were set so unreasonably high that most of us have no chance of meeting them.

Well, that's simply unacceptable to me. A stable six-figure job is failure. If I'm fated to try and fail for the rest of my life to break into the 1 in 10,000, then so be it.

Stop focusing on being special and actually dedicate yourself to something real.

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

#107
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hum…

apply the same to "sexes" and "races", and you offend our modern pc sensibilities.

[deleted]

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

#108
post #46
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…

I don't feel like that's true. I didn't expend any effort on my studies and it just came easily to me. Now, I'm not a genius, but there's a huge difference between my aptitude towards anything and the average person. I scored in the 99th percentile in math on the California high school exit exam. I went to community college at 15 (while still taking some high school courses at first, but upon taking the proficiency e…

> Maybe successful people have lazer focus.

It's probably more fun or compulsive than laser focus. One savant was described as a calendar addict. He'd ask when you were born first thing when he met you. He developed an ability to calculate the day of the week for any given date in seconds.

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

#109
post #46
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…

I don't feel like that's true. I didn't expend any effort on my studies and it just came easily to me. Now, I'm not a genius, but there's a huge difference between my aptitude towards anything and the average person. I scored in the 99th percentile in math on the California high school exit exam. I went to community college at 15 (while still taking some high school courses at first, but upon taking the proficiency e…

I think you qualify as a genius. The technical definition of 'genius' is someone with a high-IQ (usually above 140), although the definition has since been modified to mean someone who accomplishes something of significant creative merit.

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

#110
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people spend hours drawing and still suck at it. My sister spent hours with a coloring book as a kid, and now has a growing IMDB page.* Sure, she went to a great art school, but not because of some single minded focus as she had ~10 AP classes and ended up High school Valedictorian. Even this did not take her full attention as she had a wide circle of friends, was very popular, and spent a lot of time on ma…

> My sister spent hours with a coloring book as a kid, and now has a growing IMDB page Anyone in SAG can have an IMDB page. I know this because I have a child who has one after doing some trivial commercial and short film work...it really isn't a high bar, sorry.

Uhh, I mean creating real movies like Big hero Six at Disney. You know the kind of thing that's shown a most movie theaters and you can find their name in the credits.

Yea, it's not curing cancer. But, I know a lot more failed artists than successful ones.

Post reply on HN