Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Natalie Portman - Scientist

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#91

Post by btrask »

jhamburger wrote: post #87
TheSOB88 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the reason people are 'smart' is because of the way their brain has organized itself over the years in response to learning so much? Then it isn't that dumb people are dumb, just behind.

That isn't reality. The genetic factors of intelligence are well documented. I could have played basketball six hours a day, every day for the last 25 years, and I'd be really really good. But I wouldn't be as good as Lebron James was when he was 12 years old.

You'd probably be better than most other basketball players.

If you want to be the best in the world, it's true that factors outside of your control come into play. If you can "settle" for being in the top 10, top 100, or top 1000, instead of #1, you probably don't need much besides a lot of well-directed effort.

In my experience.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#92

Post by scott_s »

jhamburger wrote: post #87
TheSOB88 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the reason people are 'smart' is because of the way their brain has organized itself over the years in response to learning so much? Then it isn't that dumb people are dumb, just behind.

That isn't reality. The genetic factors of intelligence are well documented. I could have played basketball six hours a day, every day for the last 25 years, and I'd be really really good. But I wouldn't be as good as Lebron James was when he was 12 years old.

This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147

I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. It gives us an excuse for why we don't.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#93

Post by scott_s »

mbreese wrote: post #89
burgerbrain wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to the GPs attitude towards the show. Despite the near constant stream of jokes at geeks expense, people still somehow think it isn't making fun of geeks.

It's a sitcom. That's what they do... don't take it so seriously. My point was that people other than traditional 'geeks' find the show amusing. They get the humor. Geek-culture has gone mainstream.

I don't think that's accurate. They're laughing at us, not with us. They don't need to understand "geek-culture" to laugh at us. We just need to be different.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#94

Post by scott_s »

brown9-2 wrote: post #48
Anechoic wrote: post #8

He's not mentioned in the article, but Dylan Bruno from Numb3rs is an MIT grad (we both played on the football team) and, coincidentally, acted in a movie opposite Ms. Portman :) Woodie Flowers always used to say that we need an "LA Engineer" (a play on "LA Law for you younger folks) to bring science and engineering into the mainstream. I always cringe at shows like Big Bang Theory that portray smart folks as sociall…

I always cringe at shows like Big Bang Theory that portray smart folks as socially inept Fringe makes science look pretty cool, IMHO.

From what I've seen of Fringe, it makes a mockery of science.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#95

Post by mv »

scott_s wrote: post #92
jhamburger wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't reality. The genetic factors of intelligence are well documented. I could have played basketball six hours a day, every day for the last 25 years, and I'd be really really good. But I wouldn't be as good as Lebron James was when he was 12 years old.

This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. I…

What I find odd is that most people want to believe everyone is born equal. They want to believe this so badly they ignore any evidence to the contrary. For example, I can eat anything and won't gain weight, yet someone else is morbidly obese on the same diet. I can glance at something once and memorize it easily whereas else may have to spend hours and hours. We are not born equal, BUT we can improve ourselves.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#96

Post by anon7865 »

I found this article deeply irritating. I didn't even get through the whole thing, but the message was clear. Sure it is great to be a scientist...but everyone really wants to be a movie star. This makes me want to puke. Shining a bright, glowing light on those who are already drenched in adoration and celebrity. The implication is that if you're "just" a great scientist, you still must live with the bitter knowledge that you aren't loved by the masses. And to have the gall to call this a "science" article. This is the sort of shlock that belongs in People magazine.

The New York Times has been reduced to gawking.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#97

Post by scott_s »

mv wrote: post #95
scott_s wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. I…

What I find odd is that most people want to believe everyone is born equal. They want to believe this so badly they ignore any evidence to the contrary. For example, I can eat anything and won't gain weight, yet someone else is morbidly obese on the same diet. I can glance at something once and memorize it easily whereas else may have to spend hours and hours. We are not born equal, BUT we can improve ourselves.

I sincerely doubt that you are skinny on a diet that would make someone else morbidly obese [1]. What I think is more likely is that you eat as much as you want and are skinny. You're just lucky that, either through nature or nurture, what you want to eat, and the amount you want to eat, balances out with what your body needs.

I agree that there are going to be variations in inherent intelligence, body composition, or even ability to play basketball. I just don't think it's as extreme as some people do, nor do I think it's enough to be the sole enabler of people who operate at the genius level in activities.

[1] Assuming they don't have a hormonal problem, which are known to cause people on reasonable diets to become obese.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#98

Post by NinetyNine »

TheSOB88 wrote: post #77
jhamburger wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To this day, when I see phrases like, "intellectual horsepower", I cringe. We "smarties" aren't that much smarter than most other people, if we are at all. I don't think this is true at all. People who are average intelligence or below can be very successful but have no chance of succeeding in high level intellectual pursuits. People who are smart don't understand this, because to them learning anything is just a mat…

What if the reason people are 'smart' is because of the way their brain has organized itself over the years in response to learning so much? Then it isn't that dumb people are dumb, just behind.

The purpose of treating everyone as if they had equal intelligence is not a rigorous scientific pursuit, it's about creating an environment most encouraging to learning and problem solving. Engineers are much more motivated to tackle hard problems and even work together if they believe that they can adapt to each others' differences.

Re: Natalie Portman - Scientist

#100

Post by seunosewa »

artmageddon wrote: post #17
rdouble wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also inspire people trapped in dead-end science careers to take acting lessons.

That could mean the end of silly Hollywood movie physics. Imagine the possibilities!

Sorry, but actors don't write the scripts!
Post reply on HN