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

271–280 of 477 posts

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

#271

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

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…

> other metrics associated with intellectual accomplishment.

Like say IQ. Feynman wouldn't have qualified for Mensa, and happily too[0]. Maybe that's a good metric. The metric is happy not to be in Mensa, but also has a PhD.

Edit: Feynman's IQ was 126 and Mensa wants 132, at least according to Ericsson and Pool in their book Peak.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEUcmKDaklY

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

#272

Post by k2xl »

So... the higher a students test score the more likely they are to be a scientist - isn't that a truism? In order to become a scientist you have to get accepted into universities ... that will look at your test scores as judgement of whether you should be admitted.

Can anyone think of a notable scientist that didn't do well in school? We don't really encourage people who perform poorly on tests to become scientists - so none of these results are surprising.

How many students that score in the high .01% on tests end up becoming professional athletes? Or a rapper? Probably just as unlikely as a student who scores in the low .01% becoming a doctor.

Is it because smart people aren't interested in sports or don't like rap music? Doubt it.

For better or worse, our society pushes archetypes. If you do well on biology tests you are "supposed" to become a biologist. Good with computer? Become a programmer.

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

#273

Post by truth_sentinell »

naasking wrote: post #203
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?

> Are actually there studies that claim a special ability is due to genetics only? Of course there are, like tetrachromacy [1]. Or even more mundane: XY chromosomes prevent men from having the ability to give birth. I also think you're vastly underappreciating the results from genetic studies. Twin studies have repeatedly shown that identical twins separated at birth and growing up in wildly differing conditions, sti…

Thanks, I didn't know about that. But I meant cognitive abilities, like Math.

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

#274

Post by omginternets »

forgotmysn wrote: post #240
pmoriarty wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't think he's using genius to mean "a genius". I think it's instead meant as a term for "a bright idea". i.e.: "to have genius" vs "to be a genius".

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

#275

Post by yolesaber »

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.

In my college class there were two kids I would call absolute geniuses, possibly the smartest folk I have ever met. One wrote his senior thesis his second year there (on compilers and type theory) and another was a young philosophy transfer student from Deep Springs who regularly owned and outwitted professors in class to such a degree that rumors abounded he would be offered a faculty position after graduating. And he was. But he didn't take the position. Why? Because he killed himself a few days later, jumped in front of a train. The kid who wrote his senior thesis sophomore year got a job working for Google when he was nineteen (this was back when Google was still cool and considered the elite of the elite) and killed himself before his 21st birthday.

My point is that academic performance and intellect doesn't mean shit outside the academy and is a terrible indicator to use for success or accomplishment. It's never too late.

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

#276

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #251
wrp wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a Chemistry professor whose favorite remark on this is, "A PhD is a badge of endurance, not intelligence."

>A PhD is a badge of endurance, not intelligence It's very clearly both.

Nah, I forgot which top flight physicist (Nobel, I think) wrote in a book that he had explained to his mother that there were indeed very dumb PhDs, thanks to mere "sitzfleisch".

Most anyone in the business knows cases.

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

#278

Post by WalterBright »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #73
JacobJans wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I didn't expend any effort on my studies >I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I suggest that you, indeed, spent effort on your studies.

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.

Calculus has a myth built up around it on how hard it is. A kindly professor once showed me how it worked in about a half hour, and I was like "is that all"? Of course that wasn't all, but that bit of help served me very well for years of more advanced math.

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

#279

Post by sokoloff »

betenoire wrote: post #8

But are they happy?

I'm in the study and the long-term tracking surveys they send us periodically have many questions designed to ferret out different aspects and indicators of happiness and success in different dimensions of life.

I can't imagine how I could be much happier in life.

I have a great, healthy family, great career in a field that allows me to use my brain to create tons of business value for my company, take home an appropriate fraction of that, all for doing things that I'd pretty much happily do for free if I could afford to do so.

I seem to recall reading general summaries of the survey that suggest that we are, on the whole, happier than the average for our respective age groups, but I don't have any of those report summaries handy nor could I readily find them online.

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

#280

Post by 1812Overture »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #271
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…

> other metrics associated with intellectual accomplishment. Like say IQ. Feynman wouldn't have qualified for Mensa, and happily too[0]. Maybe that's a good metric. The metric is happy not to be in Mensa, but also has a PhD. Edit: Feynman's IQ was 126 and Mensa wants 132, at least according to Ericsson and Pool in their book Peak. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEUcmKDaklY

If Feynman's IQ was only 126 then IQ is a totally meaningless metric of intelligence.
Post reply on HN