Live data from Hacker News

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

scientificamerican.com

431–440 of 477 posts

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

#431
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe that it's coincidence that every person I've ever come across that has been proclaimed a genius at whatever has had this very same sentiment to express. There was a grain of talent and a moment of inspiration that led to a dogged pursuit of their interest. People are quick to write it off as "oh, they had talent" or "oh they were a genius", but I'm reasonably confident given the number of amazing peop…

Nobody ever mentions the counterexample, assuming it exists - the person who spends thousands of hours practicing but never gets anywhere. How many Salieris are there for each Mozart? There's definitely a need for hard work in order to have success, but perhaps there's something necessary that has to be present for the hard work to build upon. Maybe that something is "genius".

Not surprising. A lot of us probably qualify or come very close and the deciding factor is how much effort we expend to get there.

Meanwhile, I've got friends that live on welfare and legitimately couldn't understand neural networks (or even algebra) if they spent their whole lives dedicated to it. They are still excellent people, but perhaps mathematics isn't their best subject.

The guy I have in mind is an incredible impressionist and comedian, I wish he had more confidence in his talents.

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

#432
post #149

I probably had a gifted kid but never had enough bandwidth to lead him, comparing to his siblings he just memorizes so well(e.g, mechanically memorized PI to 600+ digits in two days until I asked him to stop), doing high-school-level math at 4th grade, learn many things by himself and so on. Meanwhile he is bored, hard to make peer friends due to lack of shared interests, etc. Everyday I have to work and care for oth…

This might help. http://www.davidsongifted.org

I have no experience with them yet.

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

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "they doggedly pursue single lines of inquiry or development, and possibilities for truly new ideas or techniques" This could easily be attributed to curiosity. Don't dismiss curiosity as something wishy-washy. As I said before, the mindset between hardworking and curious is different. That's not to say pursuing curiosity takes no effort. I'll use a musician analogy to explain. A hardworking musician works hard to…

> Hard work is driven by ego I have a sample size of one that says this is false. For me at least, hard work comes from one of a number of things, none of which are ego. 1. The desire to deliver what I set out to deliver by the deadline I promised. I made a promise and I was raised that a man is only as good as his word. So unless you have a compelling reason why delivery is not an option, you see it through. 2. The…

> ". Certainly curiosity makes the hard work seem more like play than work, but that doesn't make it any less work. It just means that you don't realize how much effort you're putting in and it really just feels like an amusing way of playing or wasting time, but it's still work."

This is at the core of why we're disagreeing.

I'll make this as clear as I can. I have no problem with putting a lot of energy into something (or in your words, I have no problem with effort).

The reason we disagree is because for you effort = work, and for me the two are distinct. For me the worker mindset is one potential driving force behind putting in effort, and curiosity is another potential driving force behind putting in effort (there are others too; fear, anger, etc...).

The key point I've been trying to make is not about effort at all, but rather the difference between work and play. Whilst I do not deny that work has its place (as you indicated, it can lead to self-reliance, which is a good thing in my opinion), what I do think is that it lets ego get in the way of making things better.

Going back to a music analogy, let's imagine someone is creating a song. During the creation of the song, they discover a new sound that by chance fits the song perfectly. If the person wants this sound in their new song, they can either sample the existing sound, or learn how to create it from scratch. For someone with a 'hard work' mentality, the sampling option seems like cheating, in the sense of cheating yourself out of creating the song. However, if you're driven by curiosity/playfulness, your involvement in the creation of the song is of less importance, what matters more is the pleasure that comes from listening, and as the sound is identical to the one you wanted to hear there's no cheating of the listener.

Here's another analogy, the hacker vs. the academic. It's possible to become skilled with technology using either approach, but they are different approaches. The hacker lets curiosity guide their learning. The academic lets refinement of existing knowledge guide their learning. The academic appreciates best practices, the hacker looks for whatever works. You could make arguments both for and against both approaches, but IMO the hacker is more likely to be driven to explore, and enjoy doing so.

Hope I've clarified that my points have been about 'work vs. play' instead of 'effort vs. no effort'.

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

#434
post #25

why is it bad to label somebody ungifted? if i had known before i did not have what it takes to become a good mathematician, i would perhaps not have pursued that. maybe i would have saved myself a lot of trouble.

There are many ungifted people who make their livings as mathematicians. Have you already abandoned math? If you haven't given up yet, there are likely things you can do to improve your chances of success.

yeah i did. i finally got my Bsc after five years and then made the switch to programming.

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

#435
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody ever mentions the counterexample, assuming it exists - the person who spends thousands of hours practicing but never gets anywhere. How many Salieris are there for each Mozart? There's definitely a need for hard work in order to have success, but perhaps there's something necessary that has to be present for the hard work to build upon. Maybe that something is "genius".

Hard work is overrated. What you really want is curiosity. You can refine something with hard work, but broadening your horizons comes from a desire to see what can be done. Basically, do you want to create a refined version of what's already been done, or do you want to explore what's possible. You can alternate between them to push in both directions, but the mindset is different.

While curiosity might be what causes you to work hard, it's still the work itself that produces the results. Although if you're lucky it might not feel very much like work! :)

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

#436

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…

Well, in the study, they tracked students that went onto become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, billionaires, Senators, none of which require a Graduate Degree. In fact, most CEOs are Phd dropouts and decided to leave the graduate education system, and some of them dropped out of their Bachelors program even, Mark from FB is in there as well as Lady GaGa. They both have a large influence on society but neither have graduate degrees. I don't see where in this study they were tracking people with Phds only. They tracked all the students who went through the program regardless of what they did.

I believe the only mode of failure they were questioning in the study was the program coordinators own inability or failure to accurately identify people who did end up making large contributions to society (such as Shockley, aka the transistor) who failed to pass their initial thresholds for what they deemed as gifted. Much of the study focuses on questioning the failure of the program to adequately identify and support gifted children, not whether gifted children themselves ended up being successful. I'm honestly surprised noone has brought this up yet and that your comment is so presumptuous.

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

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would cognitive ability be different than any other characteristic, like height, athletic ability, and so on? Those same twin studies have shown that intelligence and academic performance are also highly heritable. Certainly nurturing an ability will enhance performance, but there's an inherent upper limit to everything. Just like eating right and exercising won't make you grow taller than some max threshold, so…

I'm astonished about how many people here are using physical traits that are observable (even with the naked eye) as analogies to brain functions. Yes, we know a lot about muscle fibers, nutrition, physics and all that stuff, we can make reasonable conclusions about physical limits, but we don't know much about our brains or minds for that matter, not even state-of-art neurology have come up with solid conclusions, y…

You're arguing for magic. If brain function does not follow from our physical makeup, then where exactly do you think it comes from? Sure learning is like exercising a muscle and can shape your brain, but environment affects muscle growth too via exercise and nutrition. Would you deny that your genetics place an upper limit on your achievable strength?

Sorry to say, there is already plenty of evidence of direct genetic impact on cognitive ability that you can see with your own eyes, even ignoring the twin studies that all but prove that cognitive functions are largely heritable. For instance, down syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease and Leukodystrophies.

The scientific case is in: given comparable nutrition and a standard education, your intelligence as compared to your peers is determined by your genetic makeup.

This says nothing about your work ethic or your determination of course, and thus what you can achieve if you put in enough effort. Intelligence is merely a metric stating that given the same amount of work expended on cognitive problems, those with higher intelligence will do better on average.

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

#438
post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I won't ever know how people like that process the world but my guess is that they are attuned to the sheer horror of it in a way that most people can't conceive of, and aren't able to distract themselves from this with other pursuits. Following this taking their own lives becomes the only solution they can envision.

On the face of it, this is nonsensical, and highly offensive to people who are actually suffering. My first intuition is that no safe, warm, and dry college student could be "attuned to the sheer horror of the world" on the basis of their intelligence alone.

On the other hand, you clearly have to be in a lot of pain if you're driven to kill yourself, and we shouldn't underestimate the degree of torture that one can inflict on oneself with one's own mind.

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

#439
post #254
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope to release my first project in 4-5 months.

What's it about?

I'm not sure if I want to go into details, since I haven't decided if I want to link any of my internet accounts to my professional identity yet... perhaps when it's released I will come back and make an announcement. :)

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

#440
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…

From the OP: " clear is how much the precociously gifted outweigh the rest of society in their influence."

But ... all the students they followed had been through their program. Doesn't that equally prove that its clear how much those going through their program outweigh the rest in their influence? Isn't this just some kind of confirmation bias?

Post reply on HN