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

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

#231

Post by mhurron » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

Practicality wrote: post #190

mhurron wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The most recent data I can find on that is 20 years old so it's hard to say: http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-jobs.htm If you go by the "engineering" part of that, then average would be 125, if you go by "computer occupations" then average is a little over 110. Regarding entrepreneurs, there isn't much data. I found this quote "A more recent working paper by Simeon Djankov of the World Bank, Yingyi Qian of the University of Cali…

That intelligence can be distilled down to a single number is bullshit. IQ score is meaningless.

http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(12)00584-3

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

#232

Post by karma_vaccum123 » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

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.

Intelligence, even super-intelligence, is rarely a key determinant of success, despite what you will read here.

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

#233

Post by digler999 » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

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.

Show me the law that says you're not allowed to talk about your own intelligence when its germane to the subject matter ? Is a mover not allowed to talk about the time he lifted a refrigerator up a flight of stairs cause thats "humblebragging" about how strong he is?

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

#234

Post by wavefunction » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

brooklyndude wrote: post #90

Hung out with a brilliant heart surgeon, genius. I asked him about what cartoons he watched growing up. He said "what's a cartoon?" He was dead serious. Parents would never let him not study. Never. 100+ hour weeks. Zero time for anything else. He was happy, rich, had it all. But wondering if he every found time to watch a cartoon.

He didn't know what a cartoon was? Or was it a bit of playful retort?

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

#235

Post by nibs » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

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…

"Nobody pops out of the womb a math genius"

Two thirds of the world's current math researchers can trace lineage to just 23, 17th century mathematicians.

Source: http://www.nature.com/news/majority-of-mathematicians-hail-f...

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

#236

Post by digler999 » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

karma_vaccum123 wrote: post #222

MagnumOpus wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> middlebrow intellectual checkboxes instead of legitimate insight.

Nice humblebrag about your superior judgement of whats "middlebrow" vs "legitimate".

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

#237

Post by aab0 » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

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…

"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."

If you read Ericsson's papers, he does in fact specifically deny any role to talent and genes, by name, unequivocally. It's not a strawman, it's what he really believes. Deliberate practice is also falsified by Hambrick's meta-analyses: it does not explain much of difference in performance compared to talent. They are not gifted with 'a laser focus', they are gifted with things like intelligence.

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

#238

Post by new_hackers » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

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…

'Nobody pops out of the womb a math genius.'

Nature versus Nurture.

Nobody pops out a "math" genius. However, it could be supposed that some pop out with a greater ability to quickly recognize and remember patterns of information acquired by their senses. My ad-hoc life experience has shown that some people are good at most things they try to do, and it takes them significantly less time to acquire and use new skills than the norm.

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

#239

Post by th0waway » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:41 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…

why does exceptional ability in one translate to sub-par in another? And why does it matter? We would all agree that a Cheetah is much better at running fast than a house-cat, but that does not take away from either animal.

People so often want equal outcomes, and regardless of what the US Constitution says, all men (and women) are not created equal. It does not mean one is better than the other, just that we are different.

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

#240

Post by forgotmysn » Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 5:41 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #226

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.

"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

Sounds like an epic humblebrag by Hamilton. I don't think anyone, then or now, thinks he was a genius.