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

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

#221

Post by criddell » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

Jimmy wrote: post #182

criddell wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My goal is to be one of the most influential video game designers of this century. Shouldn't your goal be to make great games ? Otherwise, aren't you striving for a goal defined by other people? For goals like yours, politics and personality can matter as much as the work itself. If you are enjoying the journey you are on, then go for it (and I hope you are spending as much time on your social network as you are on…

>Shouldn't your goal to be to make great games? That was an implied sub-goal. The verification criteria I gave was merely to illustrate what the concrete results of my endeavors might look like. If I said flatly "I want to make great games," then someone might reasonably respond "how do you know you're succeeding?" >For goals like yours, politics and personality can matter as much as the work itself. This is quite tr…

> That was an implied sub-goal.

Being influential and making something great aren't necessarily linked. In music, for example, lots of musicians I adore list Captain Beefheart as an influence. Captain Beefheart never really achieved much commercial success. I don't like his stuff at all.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that your work towards making something great is enjoyable or at least doesn't consume all of your time. Life is short and there's more things worth experiencing than we have time for.

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

#222

Post by karma_vaccum123 » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

MagnumOpus wrote: post #207

karma_vaccum123 wrote: post #99

I just knew these comments would fill up with humblebrags from HNers who wish to casually and inoffensively proclaim their genius.

Having tested in the 99th percentile of scholastic tests despite being a lazy git is not humblebrag, it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Also, you might do well to assume that a large majority of the people here that you are trying to put down also tested in top percentages in school tests. The audience of YC and HN is self-selected nerds.

> Also, you might do well to assume that a large majority of the people here that you are trying to put down also tested in top percentages in school tests. The audience of YC and HN is self-selected nerds.

Which is exactly why so much of the discussion here is predicated on middlebrow intellectual checkboxes instead of legitimate insight.

But if you want to keep thinking this is some genius society, I can't stop you.

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

#223

Post by mod » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

truth_sentinell wrote: post #193

ralusek wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say "only" genetics. I'm just saying that your genes are enormously responsible for what you can excel in. Are you really suggesting that genetics don't play a role in who can successfully play football? If I'm 6'5", is that because I practiced at my height for 10,000 hours? By the way, to act like genetics are "suddenly" king because of some pop-science trend is ridiculous. Genetics have always been king, i…

Physical advantage due to genetics is very different from cognitive advantage due to genetics. First and foremost because we don't even have an absolute way of assessing intelligence, nor we have an appropriate scale (I personally think IQ is BS). That said, where exactly is the genetic factor that determines whether a person is more intelligent than other? Is it more neurons? More connections among them? the ability…

The idea that we don't fully understand intelligence does not negate the idea that intelligence would be genetically influenced in a similar manner to observable physical traits.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your opening statement, the two are not very different in all likelihood.

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

#224

Post by kevinwang » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #167

pas wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A PhD doesn't show that you get to the bottom of problems, but rather that you can influence, and be influenced by, group-think. Edit: Looks like it is still a while before my speech ban is up, so I'm pasting my response to kevingwang's response (below) here: >To a particular degree, anyway. Convincing a University, or being published in peer-journal, for example. >I think some are more or less ignored, though I gues…

So, the same as every other human being?

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

#225

Post by michaelkeenan » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

gbog wrote: post #36

It seems weird to me that nobody seems to see the evidence: as a parent you just want your kids to be happy. Happy in the correct way, which means long-term happiness, built with good cultural background, reasonable social skills, constructive hobbies, ability to have some of those good friends, etc. Most of these are not achieved if you're kid is "super smart". Being the father of Einstein is probably very good for…

> as a parent you just want your kids to be happy

I think this isn't universal. "Tiger mother"-style parenting[1] doesn't seem optimized for happiness, and whatever impulse is behind punishing or occasionally murdering your children for premarital sex[2] doesn't seem happiness-focused either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_mother

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

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

#226

Post by pmoriarty » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:32 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.

"Godlike genius.. Godlike nothing! Sticking to it is the genius! I've failed my way to success."

  -- Thomas Edison

"Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal. My strength lives solely in my tenacity."

  -- Louis Pasteur

"Men give me credit for genius; but all the genius I have lies in this: When I have a subject on hand I study it profoundly."

  -- Alexander Hamilton

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

#227

Post by hectormalot » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:32 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…

I agree, as a Chem Eng master (In the dutch system you do not leave university with a bachelor, it's interpreted as if you weren't good enough to get a master) I've noticed that most of the guys I considered to be the brightest left for corporate jobs, that Ph.D's were a mix of people with deep academic interest (and endurance), some very bright people, and some people that felt they weren't ready for the real world. I think it's too much of a short-cut to say PhD equals high intellectual success.

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

#228

Post by karma_vaccum123 » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #110

karma_vaccum123 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Okay, the people who serve lunch to the movie crew also gets their names in credits. She has a job...cool, but its not any more meaningful than anything else because her industry makes you look at a scrolling list of everyone related to the project.

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

#229

Post by MagnumOpus » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #104

hyperpape wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Step 1: Take highly able kids who score in the top 1% in entrance exams or can get SAT scores of 700 at age 13.

Step 2: Sort these highly able kids into quartiles by their test scores.

Result: Even within the top 1% of IQ, the relative ability still matters. I.e. there is no "cutoff" for becoming a great scientist or inventor; smarter is always better.

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

#230

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

truth_sentinell wrote: post #113

ralusek wrote: 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…

"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?

> Are actually there studies that claim a special ability is due to genetics only?

For various special abilities, including intelligence, there are studies that establish the degree to which they are heritable, as well as the effect of particular environmental and other factors in determining the non-inherited portion of the variability.