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

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

#441

Post by perseusprime11 » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 12:55 PM UTC

xarope wrote: post #424

perseusprime11 wrote: post #371

This reminds me of a Bruce Lee quote. My opponent practiced 1000 kicks and I practiced a kick 1000 times. I am paraphrasing that quote But he mentioned this in the context of focus and priority to become great at something.

I think this is the one you are referring to: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." This can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but I like to have it in the context of this other Bruce Lee quote: "Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a pu…

Bravo

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

#442

Post by S4M » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 1:01 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #416

serge2k wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cperciva He won the putnam once right? > michaelochurch banned for calling Marissa Meyer a nasty name. I'm sure he thinks he is 0.01% in most abilities.

He is in math, see the results of the 1999 USAMO. He's a fantastic writer, too.

I don't see how the fact of having taken part of the Olympiads 17 years ago says anything about his abilities now.

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

#443

Post by exelius » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #423

Jimmy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very limited conception of what video games are capable of. This is like going up to an aspiring writer in ancient Greece and saying "The Odyssey has already been written, there is nothing more to be done." Not realizing that 2,000 years later, authors like Joyce and Nabokov would still be breaking new ground. Assuming the human race endures long enough, video games are at the very beginning of what is goi…

I actually hope you prove me wrong in the most spectacular way possible, because the current games are very stale and derivative. Star Citizen is the only thing on the horizon that shows promise, at least to my personal tastes. Best of luck in your endeavors.

Star Citizen isn't even revolutionary though; it's more or less a modern re-imagining of EVE Online. It'll likely devolve into spreadsheet hell just like EVE -- reality is boring, and most of the real world is tracked in spreadsheets.

I do think there is some possibility for innovation in gaming with AR/VR, but I also agree we've probably reached the point of diminishing returns with what we can do with current control schemes (monitor + mouse/keyboard/gamepad).

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

#444

Post by mrcactu5 » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 2:00 PM UTC

michaelcampbell wrote: post #408

imgabe wrote: 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".

> How many Salieris are there for each Mozart? And if Mozart hadn't been there, at that time; would we not be speaking of Salieri as the genius? Perhaps.

What about Lady Gaga? (Stefani Germanotta)

Article says she was part of this study.

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

#445

Post by XparXnoiAx » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC

sotojuan wrote: post #122

XparXnoiAx wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In certain areas, hours might be enough, There is no area where hours are enough. How you apply the hours is extremely important.

Learned this the hard way. I spend a lot of hours learning stuff in a bad way—I end up not mastering anything!

Me too.

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

#446

Post by HillaryBriss » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #422

HillaryBriss wrote: post #216

> “... these people really do control our society,” says Jonathan Wai, a psychologist at the Duke University Talent Identification Program ... "The kids who test in the top 1% tend to become our eminent scientists and academics, our Fortune 500 CEOs and federal judges, senators and billionaires” The article assumes that promoting these super-bright people and geniuses is the way to solve the difficult problems the re…

Yep that is what I instantly thought of when reading this. I have no problem accepting that plenty of people are just smarter and more competent than I ever will be, but it will be difficult for me to swallow that they are actually automatically helpful. If they were, we'd probably live in some sort of utopia by now.

California seems like an interesting case. A disproportionate share of Nobel prize winners and other exceedingly bright people live here.

At the same time California has a large number of impoverished residents, a huge backlog of unfunded repair work on roads and bridges, huge unfunded worker pension obligations, much of the nation's worst traffic, a housing shortage for the middle and lower classes, severe water shortages in various places (like East Porterville), a persistent diversity problem in tech employment, a low credit rating, low per-capita spending on education, state college and university funding shortfalls, mediocre educational results at the elementary and secondary school levels, etc.

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

#447

Post by tonyedgecombe » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #295

cubano wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all of the education system is about signalling your abilty to be told what to do and doing it, and not hardly at all about actually learning things necessary for a successful and productive life.

Although... Being able to do what your told is fairly necessary for a productive life. Don't do drugs, brush your teeth, get a good education, exercise regularly, shower regularly, spend less than you make, eat healthy. Do as your told.

Don't study CS, Law is where the money is, don't start a business, it will probably fail, don't date that girl, her parents are bumpkins. Do as your told.

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

#448

Post by balabaster » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 3:18 PM UTC

elcritch wrote: post #427

balabaster wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I notice your edit where you admit point 2 is likely ego. Point 1 is also particularly ego as in the sense of "self-image, as you use it explicitly to define an image of yourself that is distinct from others on a psychological level, as in "I am a man who makes good on promises". So two of your points are pretty ego based. Now not saying that's a bad thing! I have learned the hard way that we all have egos and that g…

Point 1 I will agree is about reputation. But to conflict with your perspective, this is less about ego than about contribution to your community and self preservation. If you're not as good as your word, eventually nobody trusts you or wants to work with you... and if nobody trusts you or wants to work with you, then your chances of getting where you need to go are quickly decimated.

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

#449

Post by MrFantastic » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #125

pmoriarty wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In certain areas, hours might be enough, but not always and everywhere. Chess is a good example. I've seen a 12 year old kid at a chess competition wipe the floor with dozens of much older players (people in their 40's, 50's, and up), who've been playing chess -- obsessively -- their whole lives. This 12 year old kid has been playing chess for maybe 6 years (let's say 8 years maximum), but he totally crushes others w…

I absolutely agree. Chess reveals in a very concrete way that you can just run out of talent. Every player seems to have an innate ceiling on their abilities that no amount of study will overcome. Spend long enough in a club and you'll see it over and over - the duffers in their forties who can never seem to break 1800 and the snotty kids who skyrocket to 2300 with no apparent effort. Golf seems to be fairly similar.…

Most good golfers start when they are small and/or grew up near a golf course.

Many amateurs never get good because they they don't practice the right things(e.g. putting and short game). Drive for show, putt for dough.

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

#450

Post by linkregister » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 4:05 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…

Was Albert Einstein cursed? It seemed that he lived a full life. He married, was a respected lecturer for the entirety of his life even after his peak in his mid-20s.