Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by veddox » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

spdionis wrote: post #5

> 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…

> > In Europe, support for research and educational programmes for gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more towards inclusion.

Actually, that is the one part of the article I was rather skeptical about. Certainly in Germany there's an abundance of programs designed especially to nurture gifted pupils. They range from extra-curricular activities in school to summer academies and "early studying", where pupils take university classes one day a week instead of going to school.

Yes, we also have a lot of inclusion efforts, and that's a Good Thing, but we definitely don't neglect the other side of the intellectual spectrum.

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

#172

Post by collyw » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #157

squigs25 wrote: post #143

Interesting read, but I have one major qualm about this. There seems to be a confirmatory bias among the academic community that a measure of intellectual success can be found in the percentage of individuals who earn a PhD. Sure, it's true that you need to be reasonably smart to earn a PhD, but I think that someone can have a lot of intellectual success (potentially just as much or maybe more) if they don't earn a P…

Knowing a few friends and other acquaintances with PhDs, all they have common is endurance and focus. They were not exceptionally creative, or apparently breathtakingly genius. And I guess that's why Google et al. likes to hire PhDs. They can take all kinds of shit, and endure. Get to the bottom of those problems even in the face of internal politics/bureaucracy.

I have been working at academic institutes the last few years, where maybe a third of the staff are PhD students. The ones that have gone on to more senior positions are like you describe, but I wouldn't say its the majority. A fair few of them decide to quit science after the PhD.

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

#173

Post by iopq » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

jawarner wrote: post #141

iopq wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those weren't my studies. Those were my hobbies. Give me homework and I'll run away screaming. I used to HATE the language subjects. Now that I'm not being forced to do it, I enjoy linguistics.

> Those weren't my studies. Those were my hobbies. Then your case does not contradict the OC's view that "Gifted children are "gifted" with a laser focus on the unusual things that they find fun - math, music, what-have-you."

I didn't have lazer focus, in fact I spread myself over many different subjects. I studied zoogeography, physics, chemistry, history, etc. because I thought those things were interesting. This didn't stop me from finding calculus to be approachable and easy.

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

#174

Post by mhurron » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

Practicality wrote: post #130

mhurron wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most here on HN are in one of the other two groups What would make you say that? Since there is no actual filter and no one is actually forcing any requirement, it should be that most of any group are somewhat similar to the standard distribution of the population, so most on HN should be like most of any other group, bog standard average. I know I am.

The topics and the community are both a filter and forcing a requirement. From my own observation I would wager that a majority here are in that top 10% . People are not just randomly assigned to reading and commenting on Hacker News. It's an intellectual community that would naturally attract those who have such skills.

> People are not just randomly assigned to reading and commenting on Hacker News

No they randomly show up being either directly or tangentially associated with either technology or startup culture. That's it.

And while those people really do love to think of themselves as more intelligent than the general population, I don't see it.

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

#175

Post by neeleshs » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

geocar wrote: post #136

saint_fiasco wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calculus textbooks are difficult but rewarding. A 10 year old child who can enjoy them must have some gift that makes it easier for them to understand the difficult parts quickly and get straight to the rewarding part.

> must have some gift Or what? The rest of us are dumb? It could have been a good teacher, who found a way to make it make sense, or some other series of positive reinforcement that shaped them and prepared them, to be thinking about mathematics clearly. It doesn't have to be the luck of the draw. I don't want anyone to give up, thinking they just didn't get the gift, so they should be content with playing with the b…

Indeed, I love https://betterexplained.com/ which is all about intuitive understanding of calculus and other stuff. A post on the constant 'e' - nobody ever told me what that number really means. More such material, and a willingness to learn is all thats needed for a majority of folks, in my opinion

Edit: typo

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

#176

Post by rurban » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

yuncun wrote: post #38

Retric wrote: 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…

I dont want to detract from your story, but >has an IMDB page is a funny metric for success.

I like that metric, because I was considered super smart as a kid, and I have two IMDB credits. (one even a Sundance winner)

But I failed the other criteria in the article, inventions (even if I invented a certain computer-game-as-artform category in the 90ies), PhD, scientific success, ...

Yes, it's a funny metric. And even if e.g. Cannes states that you can attend the festival if you are on IMDB, they never let me in. (Nowadays I wouldn't want to either because of politics) So it's inconsistent also.

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

#177

Post by 20years » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

"They're just developing different talents," says Lubinski, a former high-school and college wrestler. "But our society has been much more encouraging of athletic talents than we are of intellectual talents."

Bingo! Along with our society has been much more encouraging with the extrovert personalities vs the introverts.

I encourage everyone to read the book Quiet by Susan Cain.

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

#178

Post by paulpauper » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

squigs25 wrote: post #143

Interesting read, but I have one major qualm about this. There seems to be a confirmatory bias among the academic community that a measure of intellectual success can be found in the percentage of individuals who earn a PhD. Sure, it's true that you need to be reasonably smart to earn a PhD, but I think that someone can have a lot of intellectual success (potentially just as much or maybe more) if they don't earn a P…

a STEM PHD is anything but 'easy' - it requires an original contribution of research, for one , and it must be defended and published

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

#179

Post by truth_sentinell » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #161

truth_sentinell wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Genetics" is the new God. Apparently people assign whatever they don't know or understand to genetics. Can't play football? That's genetics!! Knows math? More genetics!! Are actually there studies that claim a special ability is due to genetics only?

Do you really need a study to see that the top athletes in the Olympics, for example, are all there due to genetic advantages? Whether it's higher endurance, a tiny difference in bone structure, longer arms, greater height, etc. - that's all mostly genetics with a bit of environmental factors mixed in (like childhood nutrition) But cognitive abilities and intelligence are far less understood, because you simply can't…

I perfectly understand the physical genetics advantages. But people here and everywhere are attributing intelligence to genetics as it was as evident as physical traits.

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

#180

Post by Kazamai » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

There is a characteristic not mentioned that can determine if someone will reach a high level or not. Self gratification or the ability to delay self gratification. The "marshmallow kid", even a gifted kid that cannot fight their own human condition to seek a dopamine reward from eating, entertainment, etc can't reach their potential. If you got a reward from problem solving and knowledge acquisition then it wouldn't take much to focus.

Why can we focus for hours gaming, but when it comes to solving a math problem, most of us will never start or stop shortly after.